Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS, SOUTH-WEST ENGLAND

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I beg to move,
That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to make further provision for the maintenance and excavation of ancient manuments in South-Western England, in particular at the Stone Circle at Avebury, at sites in the neighbourhood and at Stonehenge.
I hope that the Motion will be supported by speeches by several hon. Members on both sides of the House who, I know, have a close interest in the subject, as have a large number of hon. Members who are not able to take part in the debate. I also hope that the Motion will commend itself to the Minister.
I approach this subject with some diffidence because my own knowledge of these great prehistoric monuments, many of which, and some of the most important of which, are situated near my constituency of Swindon, is meagre and relatively recent. Moreover, even the most qualified experts still disagree about the precise origins of many of the monuments, about the men who built them and used them, about their original state, and even about the exact purposes for which they were used. Indeed, some experts, I think, rather feel that no one but an expert is qualified to discuss the subject.
However, in the short time that I have been associated in a formal way with that part of the country I have developed, as, I am sure, all hon. Members who have been there must have developed, a great interest in and love for the tranquil and

ancient countryside of Wiltshire, and have found the monuments a strange source of fascination and of beauty. Incidentally, the House may be interested to know that of the ancient monuments to be scheduled by the Minister in his official list this year there are no fewer than 62 in Wiltshire, nearly twice as many as there are in any other county in the United Kingdom.
Some of my hon. Friends may have wondered why, having been fortunate enough to win the first place in the Ballot for today, I did not choose to draw attention to a great topical issue of party controversy or of international importance. A debate of that kind might have earned a couple of headlines in the daily newspapers, but it probably would not have produced any very practical result, whereas I am hoping that by bringing up today this subject, which is not one of party controversy and is not concerned with the highest matters of policy, we shall be able to persuade the Minister to tell us some news which will encourage the many thousands of people outside the House who take a very real and close interest in these great monuments.
We are glad to see the Minister in his place today. I have no doubt that the pheasants, which otherwise, I understand, he would have been with, are equally glad. At the same time, I am sorry for the reason he is here instead of his Parliamentary Secretary, the reason being that the Parliamentary Secretary has been taken ill. At all events, I hope that the Minister will feel that he can give us some encouragement and I am grateful to him for kindly allowing me to give notice of some of the points I intend to raise today.
Experts now tell us that of all monuments the area round Avebury, which lies south of my constituency of Swindon and a little west of Marlborough is
without doubt the most important prehistoric site in Britain.
I quote that opinion from a publication of the Ministry of Works itself. The site consists of an immense Stone Cirle covering an area of about 29 acres of open downland, in the centre of which there still stands a village which was built many centuries ago.
In prehistoric times it seems that this whole area was very intensively occupied and round the circle itself is a series of


very important but smaller works of a similar kind. The circle is built of large blocks of the local Sarsen stone found on the downs. There are in the main circle two or possibly three smaller and possibly earlier circles, the precise purpose of which is not yet known, surrounded by a huge bank with a ditch about 50 feet deep inside the bank, making the largest prehistoric circle and fosse in the world.
Then there is a great avenue of stones, some of them still standing, leading towards the village of West Kennet. At the end of that avenue there is a series of smaller circles, known as the Sanctuary. About one-and-a-half miles west of that is what is thought to be one of the largest circular artificial mounds in Europe, known as Silbury Hill, which is still a mystery to archaeologists and experts who have not yet found any trace of habitation or religious use for this man-made small mountain.
The whole group shows an immensely high level of civilisation reached by people, some of whom belonged to the late Neolithic period and some to the early Bronze Age, who probably built the monuments about 4,000 years ago. The results of their work show incredible energy and the employment of immense numbers of people. The stones themselves are very large and have been dragged considerable distances. The works also show considerable scientific skill. The stones are placed with almost mathematical exactitude. It must have been a tremendous job to make a monument of this kind, working with very primitive tools, digging the great ditch from hard chalk with tools made of stone or of the antlers of red deer and carrying the material away in baskets or possibly containers made from the shoulder blades of prehistoric animals.
These monuments are far too little known in the country generally. One of the first people to write about them in more recent times was the eighteenth century antiquarian Stukeley, who said that Avebury is to Stonehenge as a cathedral is to a parish church. My purpose in drawing attention to it is to secure the spending of a little more money and the restarting of excavations which began at the beginning of the last war.
The monuments were bought by a private benefactor, Mr. Alexander Keiller, in the late 1920's. During the time he was in possession he did what he considered to be two-thirds of the heavy work involved in the restoration of the site. In two places he had to clear a large number of trees away and a very great deal of work was done at that time. He was able to re-erect a number of the stones which had been buried for reasons of religious superstition in the fourteenth century. Others, unfortunately, were taken away or destroyed in the seventeenth century and now cannot be found or replaced.
He re-erected one complete segment of the outer circle and did some work on the inner circles to which I have referred. During the time when he owned the monuments he had about six men employed in showing visitors round the site and about 30 to 40 men employed on digging work. I believe that I am right in saying that he spent during the years when he was in control about £40,000. At any rate, it was a very substantial amount and represented an immense benefaction to people who are interested in these things.
Sadly enough, only a few weeks ago Mr. Keiller died, leaving a large number of unpublished documents. Many of them have not been gone through. They ought to be looked at and prepared for publication. Some years before his death, at the beginning of the war, Mr. Keiller sold the site at the price which he originally paid for it, not taking into consideration the money spent on restoration. He sold it to the National Trust under an arrangement whereby the Ministry of Works became responsible for it. The Ministry now controls the site itself, several related monuments in the neighbourhood and the museum, the contents of which, I understand, still belong to Mr. Keiller's estate.
The museum was closed during the war. It reopened in 1945 and since that time thousands of people have visited both the museum and the site itself. This year there have been more than 16,000 visitors so far to the museum, which probably represents four or five times as many people visiting the Stone Circle itself. That is a very substantial number of visitors. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate what the total attendance figures might be.
I should also like to know what money the Ministry spend on the maintenance of the site, what the income from the museum has been and whether there is any other source of income at present from the site. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the really lamentable staffing situation. As I said, in the days of Mr. Keiller five or six men were permanently employed in showing visitors round and looking after the site. Now there are only two officials working for the Ministry, one the curator of the little museum at Avebury and the other the Ministry of Works custodian.
These two have a really impossible task to carry out. One ought to express particular sympathy with the curator, a very remarkable and devoted man who has spent a great part of his life in working at Avebury, and who seems to think and dream of little else. He was originally employed there when Mr. Keiller undertook the work. He is now in charge of the museum and the many documents which Mr. Keiller left behind him. To try to do that job, to be curator of the museum, to be in charge of the whole site and give adequate information to visitors to the museum and site itself and look after the general needs of many thousands of people every year, is obviously completely beyond the powers of the curator and the custodian. There is one other custodian working nearby at Windmill Hill for the Ministry of Works, but it is extremely difficult for him to go to Avebury at short notice.
Something should be done about the staff situation at Avebury in order to provide proper guidance and help to people visiting the site, to keep it in a good state and to allow the curator to get on with the real job of running the museum and corresponding with and helping archaeologists all over the country and, indeed, in many parts of the world. I understand that there is difficulty about accommodation for an extra member of the staff if he could be found, and I hope that the Minister may be able to tell us whether he has had a further report on the cottage just outside the Circle which recently became available and which was supposed to have been in rather a bad condition.
Apart from the staff at Avebury itself, there are the three other sites in the neighbourhood—the Sanctuary. Silbury

Hill and the West Kennet Long Barrow—which are now being looked after by a part-time custodian whose main job is to work on a farm and who lives at West Kennet. That seems to be an unsatisfactory arrangement because this man, on a part-time basis, has not the time to do his job properly, and in the summer months grass and weeds grow quickly. He is often called out to do overtime on his farm and so another full-time custodian is necessary for looking after those three monuments, quite apart from what happens in the circle itself.
Then I want to ask the Minister what he has been doing in recent years, by means of publicity, to draw the attention both of people living in this country and abroad to the existence and importance of the site at Avebury. I am bound to say, however, that I do not think the staff would welcome a great deal of publicity until the staff situation has been dealt with, because they are finding it extremely difficult to deal with visitors as things stand.
My most important point is to ask the Minister what are his plans for excavation in the future. As I said, Mr. Keiller reckoned that he had completed about two-thirds of the heavy work. As regards the Stone Circles, less than half of the outer circle, that is the stones of which it consists, have been re-erected and there are about another 25 stones on the other side which are still buried and have been in the ground for many hundreds of years.
Perhaps the most urgent work is some more excavation on the two, or possibly three, inner circles inside the main circle of stones, because archaeologists all over the world are anxious to try to solve the mystery of what they represented, how they were in their original state, whether, in fact, there were two or three circles. Quite a small expenditure of money and a relatively small amount of work might go a long way to solving those mysteries.
I know that there is a rather attractive feeling among some archaeologists that on a site of this importance it is not right, in one generation, to do all the work; that because of the constant improvement in archaeological methods, and perhaps out of a fellow-feeling for people who come afterwards, bits of sites of this kind ought to be left to the work of archaeologists a hundred or two hundred years hence. That might well be applied


to some part of the monument at Avebury, but there is a great deal of urgent work on which a start ought to be made.
I want to mention one other problem to the Minister, and that is the question of the remaining houses inside the Stone Circle. I understood that when the transfer from Mr. Keiller to the National Trust and the Ministry of Works took place early in the last war, some conditions were imposed about clearing all buildings inside the circle so that eventually all these houses—and the little "pub" there and the other farm buildings—should be removed and the Stone Circle would be in something nearer to its original state. I can see the argument for clearing the monument and leaving it standing bleakly and alone on the Wiltshire Downs. On the other hand, I personally feel that there is a great deal to be said for leaving at least a part of the village inside the circle. It is an attraction for the more simple visitors and it gives a great feeling of continuity and of history to the site.
I also want to ask the Minister whether he has any information about Avebury Manor, which is a much later building but is a pleasant country house standing close to the circle, and which used to belong to Mr. Keiller. I understand that the Ministry of Works had the opportunity of acquiring this property two or three years ago, that negotiations took place between the Ministry and representatives of Mr. Keiller, and that the deal fell through.
Many people regret that this happened and wonder what kind of arrangements either his Department or the National Trust might be able to make were that building ever to become available again. Certainly, if it were in public ownership and in some way related to the prehistoric site, there would be much to be said for such an arrangement. I understand that the house changed hands recently and that the new owner will probably open it to the public. If so, I am sure that all visitors to Avebury would welcome that decision.
My final question on Avebury is to ask the Minister whether he can tell us what has happened to the plans for building a by-pass round the site. He is probably aware that at present the main road from Swindon runs right through the middle of it, turning sharply round

the little hotel there. It is a great source of danger to motorists and, of course, it is highly undesirable to have a lot of heavy and dense traffic traversing a prehistoric monument of this importance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what plans have been prepared in consultation with the Ministry of Transport about building such a bypass.
Then I would like briefly to draw attention to one or two other ancient monuments in the area. I know that a number of my hon. Friends who are going to take part in this debate are greatly interested in the question of the destruction of barrows. I only want to draw the attention of the Minister to the Report of his Ancient Monuments Board of England for last year, published not long ago. Paragraph 7 explains that:
Barrows are the burial places of ancient peoples and by careful excavation and examination of the remains, relics and ritual structures which they contain, it has been found possible to build up a valuable picture of ancient civilisations. The bulldozer and deep plough are destroying information of immeasurable value before it can be examined and recorded.
Towards the end of the report there is a rather lamentable catalogue of barrows which have been destroyed during the time covered by the Report. Sometimes they were destroyed by farmers who did not even know they were there and who had no idea of their archaeological importance. Sometimes they were destroyed without the knowledge of the Ministry of Works, who only got to know what had happened many months afterwards. There was one case in which there should have been prosecution, but a period of six months elapsed before the Ministry heard about it so no prosecution was possible.
Far better than prosecuting people for destroying these monuments would be a really efficient system of drawing the attention of owners and of the general public to them. If one looks back at the Questions that have been asked over a long period of years in this House, one finds that the Ministry of Works has been very dilatory in this matter. Over and over again the Ministry has said that it would consider whether all monuments of this kind should be properly marked and labelled, and that the scheme of county correspondents should be


strengthened. So far, however, little effective action has been taken and I press the Minister to tell us what he now intends to do in this respect.
The first task is to try to protect the important long barrows, and the second is to make certain that in cases where they will be destroyed because they cannot be protected, archaeologists are given adequate opportunities for digging before destruction takes place.
Now I want briefly to refer to Stonehenge, about which a great deal has been said in the House in the past and which is now generally in a much more satisfactory condition that Avebury, in spite of its relative insignificance when compared with that monument. I wonder whether the Minister can give us the Stonehenge admission figures for the most recent convenient period and the figures for revenue earned from visitors, and can tell us whether it is a fact that at present Stonehenge is running at a very substantial profit. I have no doubt that it is one of the very few exceptions in that respect among the monuments of which the Minister is in charge. If it is a fact that substantial profits are being made by Stonehenge, it is a disgrace that one or two small improvements for which people interested in the site have been pressing for months and years have not yet been carried out.
This important prehistoric work is still standing on the downs surrounded by something which looks like a barbed wire entanglement. Complaints have been made over and over again about the fence round the building. Perhaps the most important thing when one looks at Stonehenge is to see it standing there remote on the downs with nothing else to interrupt the view or catch one's eye. I know that the Minister has a problem in trying to make visitors use one entrance, but they often climb over the unsightly wire. It should not be beyond the wit of the Minister's officials to provide a ditch or some other form of concealed protection for the monument in order to prevent any unsightliness.
People interested in Stonehenge would like to congratulate the Minister upon having built an underground lavatory which does not destroy the amenities of the site, but the old shack formerly used for that purpose is still there. I

gather that it is at present used by the custodians to store their tools. Is it not time the building was pulled down? I should also like to know whether the Minister can tell us a little about the staffing position at Stonehenge. In view of the number of visitors and the importance of the site, I believe that the staff is very inadequate.
I should have liked to have been able to paint a vivid word picture of these sites, and particularly of Avebury, but it would not be easy for anyone to do so. I end by urging the Minister to take the opportunity some time to look at the Avebury site himself. I know that he was good enough to make arrangements for the Parliamentary Secretary to visit the site before his illness. If the Minister and other hon. Members would visit the site, I am sure that they would be as convinced as I am that something must be done about it and that there is an immensely strong case for spending a little public money on what is, after all, one of the most important and precious prehistoric sites in this country and, indeed, in this part of the world.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I beg to second the Motion.
I would begin by apologising to the House and in particular to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), who has so ably moved the Motion, and the Minister for the fact that I shall probably not be able to remain to hear my right hon. Friend's reply. I have an engagement which it is impossible for me not to keep.
It may seem strange that the House should set aside part of a sitting in order to debate a subject which is of comparatively minor importance when we are faced by so many national problems, but I believe, paradoxically, that one way of measuring the quality and the vitality of a civilisation is to judge the importance and value which it attaches to the relics of its own past.
The hon. Member has spoken mostly about prehistoric monuments, but the terms of his Motion do not debar us from considering also the medieval monuments which are under the care of the same department of the Ministry of Works. I should like to say a few preliminary words about these other monuments


before speaking about the category with which the hon. Member dealt.
I believe the Ministry has done a most excellent job. There are some who think that buildings, like living organisms, have a natural term of years and that it is wrong for us to try to prolong their life once their usefulness is past. Have we not got enough cathedrals without propping up our old, mouldering monasteries? Are there not enough standing castles without attempting to preserve the ruined walls of keeps which can shelter no human being and only a few cattle when they are storm-bound? That, indeed, was the answer of centuries before our own.
Now we think otherwise. We realise that these monuments, even in their ruinous condition, are the work of craftsmen which has never been excelled. They are objects of beauty. They have become part of the countryside which at one time they dominated and by which they are now enfolded. Above all, they represent evidence of an English way of life which, however remote and barbaric it may seem to us now, was certainly for many centuries no cruder or ruder than our own.
In the Ministry of Works, those concerned with the matter have consistently adopted that attitude. They are not fakers. They do not reconstruct out of their own imagination. With nothing to guide them except the walls which survive above the turf, all that they have ever tried to do is to preserve what remains by clearing away the brambles and the fallen rubble and relaying the site with green turf. They have never attempted to put there what was not there before.
I cannot agree with those who criticise the Ministry for having cleaned up our ruins. I find nothing inconsistent between the clean lines of Ministry of Works sites and the antiquity of the monuments themselves. I admire their guide books, and I respect their curators. I would infinitely prefer to see important monuments cared for in the way in which my right hon. Friend has cared for them than that they should be allowed to fall into increasing dilapidation.
Hon. Members may have been able to visit the current exhibition of the Ancient Monuments Department of the Ministry at the R.I.B.A. There they will find evidence of the extreme care and skill

with which the Ministry has saved the fabric of what remains.
I now turn to the main subject which was introduced by the hon. Member for Swindon. The monuments of Roman and prehistoric times are uglier than the relics of the monasteries and our castles, but they are of even greater historical importance. Indeed, in very many cases they are the only evidence of that time that we possess, and Great Britain is richer in these antiquities than is any other country in Europe. By the chances of geography and economic history, these prehistoric monuments were erected on the moors and uplands which were at that time the only inhabitable parts of our island, the rest being bog and forest.
Today, by a paradoxical—and unfortunate—chance, it is when we have come to appreciate the value of these monuments and to know more about them, and when public interest has been aroused in them, that for the first time in history they come under the threat of the developer and the plough. The Ancient Monuments Acts and the staff at the Ministry are not yet strong enough to cope with this depredation.
Public conscience was aroused a year ago by the levelling, by the deep plough, of the Normanton and Manton Down barrows, but, as the hon. Member for Swinton pointed out, it is necessary to read the Report of the Ancient Monuments Board for England, of which I am a member, to realise the full extent of the depredations involved. The hon. Member mentioned his own county of Wiltshire. In the Report we read that of 288 prehistoric monuments, seven have recently completely disappeared and 59 have suffered very severely from the deep plough.
The House should realise that we are concerned with the danger not only from the deep plough and the bulldozer. Even a single light ploughing will obliterate our Celtic field system—which may have existed for some twenty centuries—as effectively as a sponge passed across the surface of an ancient manuscript. If this process continues, we shall be deprived for ever of irreplaceable evidence of part of our history, which, however crude it may seem, is still an essential part of the story. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Swindon when he pleads with my right hon. Friend that we should


either recover that evidence by excavation before it is too late, or keep it sealed beneath its covering of turf until the spade and trowel can do their careful work.
It may be asked whether these monuments are not already preserved and safeguarded by the scheduling process. Unfortunately, that is not so, because merely scheduling a monument is not sufficient guarantee that it will be preserved. Even if the owner or the occupier of the land is aware of the importance of the monument and of his legal obligations towards it—and in many cases he is aware of neither—he has only to give three months' notice under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, and if within that time the Minister has not accorded the monument his extra protection, or if it has not been possible within that same time to excavate it, the owner is at complete liberty to deal with that monument as he wishes.
I am not suggesting that the Ancient Monuments Act should be amended to prohibit under any circumstances the ploughing of any monument in any field. To do so would simply be to antagonise the agricultural population. It is too much to expect of them, but I believe that it would be possible, and is essential, that the Minister should draw up a list, additional to the list of monuments which are already scheduled and protected, giving a guarantee of survival in perpetuity of the most important monuments in each category of ancient field works. If that were done, it is quite clear that we should save for future generations of archaeologists a representative sample of all which exists today, but which is rapidly disappearing.
My second suggestion is that it is high time that we did more to remind owners and occupiers of their obligations. If it can be put to them that, by the chance of occupation, they hold in trust for the nation a unique historical record, I feel quite certain that in the majority of cases we could gain their co-operation and even their interest.
We cannot expect farmers, without outside advice, even to recognise the existence of monuments on their fields. A barrow is often as little as 6 in, high and as much as 30 ft. broad, and to the farmer it is simply a familiar and inexplicable swelling in a familiar field. At

most he would like to see it bulldozed out of his way. He has virtually no other reminder of its existence. It may be marked on the 6 in. Ordnance map, but so far the Ordnance Survey makes no distinction between those monuments which are scheduled and those which are not. I suggest that it should be invited to indicate, by some conventional sign, those monuments of particular importance.
Monuments should be listed upon the land register of the locality. But how often will a farmer even examine the land register? Even if he did so when he first took over the property, not many farmers would be particularly interested in the existence of a monument and take precautions accordingly against its destruction.
There should therefore undoubtedly be regular reminders. How is this to be done? One way is by putting a physical mark on the ground, and this was indeed the recommendation which my Board made to the Minister in its last Report. He turned it down on grounds of expense. Although I was partly responsible for that advice, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the expense would be colossal, but more than that it would be a disadvantage to mark every monument, particularly the humps, with a metal notice calling the attention of landowners and the public to the fact that if a monument is destroyed, they will be prosecuted. It would take away the whole sentimental scenic associations of the monument itself, and although I was partly responsible for that advice and thought it right at the time, I now think that we must turn to other methods.
There are two other methods which occur to me. I believe that it should be possible to give an annual reminder to the owners of land on which these monuments stand by the insertion of a notice within the rating notice. I understand that rating notices are already compiled from the land register and it is on the land register that the existence of these monuments is noted. Would it, therefore, be a very difficult task requiring the services of more than one or two clerks to arrange that, whenever the rating notice is sent out to a land owner who does own a monument, his attention should be called annually to that fact and to his duties in respect of the monument under the existing Act?
If that were not possible, I believe that the Ancient Monuments Department of the Ministry of Works should itself do the job. It knows where the monuments are. It has lists of thousands. Again, would it be such a big job and would it not be well worth the expense to employ the extra two or three clerks necessary to send out formal notices from Lambeth House to owners and occupiers concerned telling them of the existence of a monument and its nature and inviting their co-operation, and in the last resort reminding them of the penalties which they would incur if they defaced or removed the monument?
There should be a regular inspection of the monuments. All the methods which I have suggested would be of no avail, unless it were made possible, by one or other of the methods which I shall suggest, that each monument, the 50,000 of them, if necessary, should be annually visited by an inspector who has not only the archaeological knowledge but the authority to talk to the owner on the spot. Who could do that? I believe that it could be done by mobilising the thousands of amateur archaeologists throughout the country.
Clearly the Ancient Monuments Department could not possibly visit all these monuments even once in 50 years. The staff is far too small, but it could be done, as I have often urged, by the Council of British Archaeology, which is the parent body of all county archaeological societies. That would create a network of inspectors, some professional and some amateur, and so ensure that each of the monuments was visited at least once a year.
There is the category of Ordnance Survey officers who deal particularly with matters concerning archaeological remains. They patrol the country at least once a year. Their function is to find the remains of unknown monuments and in doing so they traverse the ground where known monuments exist. Could their help not be enlisted by the Ministry of Works to go, with the amateurs I mentioned earlier, to cover the country by a detailed system of inspection at least once a year? In doing so they would give advice to co-operative farmers and warning to the spoliators. The result would be what the hon. Mem-

ber for Swindon and the rest of us earnestly desire, the preservation from desecration by ignorant people of these ancient earthworks for the study and the enlightenment of future generations.

11.50 a.m.

Mr. John Parker: I have had an interest in these various monuments which dates back to my boyhood spent in Wiltshire, at Marlborough, in the early 'twenties, having gone to Stonehenge first in an enthusiastic party of boys with a master who wanted us to be there to see the sun rise over the altar on Midsummer day. However, I am afraid that on that occasion Stonehenge was even more surrounded by barbed wire than it is today.
When we got there a party of sun worshippers had preceded us and, in trying to get over the barbed wire, some of them had torn their trousers. I am afraid that the interest of most of the boys in the party was directed more to watching the sun worshippers kneeling down and bowing to the sun, with the revealing depredations of the barbed wire, than in the actual sight itself.
But, last year, I again visited Stonehenge, and I must say that there has been an enormous improvement in its state of care since that occasion in the 'twenties. It is still a fact that it is too much surrounded by barbed wire and that it is rather overlooked, or unduly dominated, by the camp at Larkhill. I should like to ask the Ministry whether consideration could be given to planting a covering belt of trees in the distance from Stonehenge so that the scene is not dominated by the Larkhill camp.
I visited Avebury in the 'twenties and again two or three years ago. There has been an enormous improvement in the way in which that site is cared for, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker). A very great deal is owed to the work of Mr. Alexander Keiller in caring for that site and in interesting people in it. I happened to take a German friend who is an archaeologist to see that site, and I felt rather ashamed when he made the comment that only in England could so great a monument of man's past be so neglected for so long. I am afraid that I felt that there was a certain amount of justification for that remark,


despite the great work done by Mr. Keiller in caring for the site.
At present, when one sees the half of the circle which has been restored one gets an impression of the magnificence and size of the original monument. I am certain that it would be very much enhanced if the remainder of the circle could be restored in the same way. So that the visitor might get a real impression of the importance of the monument, I suggest that there ought to be an early restoration of the rest of the circle, though I agree that from an archaeological point of view there may be other parts of the site that ought to have prior treatment.
One third of the avenue from the Temple down to West Kennet has been restored, and the remaining two-thirds ought to be dealt with at a very early date. Some of it runs through a road; some of it is in fields, some of which may be ploughed. I think that this ought to be excavated and, where possible, stones re-erected for the rest of the avenue at an early date.
The avenue leads down to the sanctuary on Overton Hill. That, unfortunately, was destroyed in the eighteenth centry. It is not only farmers who plough the land today who are destructive of monuments; a great deal of destruction was done in the eighteenth century by road builders. At that time both farmers and road builders tended to break up many of the circles and to use the stone for repairing or making roadways. The whole of the magnificent sanctuary was destroyed at that time.
Thanks to another archaeologist, Mr. Cunningham, that site was excavated and marks have been made showing where the sanctuary was. I believe that that was done in 1930. It is believed that this avenue from Avebury may lead to the sanctuary, but until there has been excavation that cannot be confirmed. I suggest that the point should be cleared up as soon as possible by the completion of the excavation of that avenue.
Early visitors to the site in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries talked about an avenue going from Avebury as far as Beckhampton. There are still one or two very large stones in the fields there. That, again, needs

some investigation to discover where there was or was not a further avenue in that direction. Most of the land is under the plough at present and, if there are any relics, there is a ranger that they will be completely lost. I suggest that work should be done also in further excavation in the inner "settings" of the temple at an early date.
I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said about the manor at Avebury. It is a mainly seventeenth century house. There is in its grounds, I believe, an early indoor tennis court of the time of Charles II. The house and its surroundings are charming and certainly ought to be retained in any preservation of the area. In this respect, I have a suggestion which I wish to make. A great many visitors already attend Avebury. In years to come the number will be very much larger. Might not this house be converted into an hotel, or otherwise used in connection with the site? Certainly, we do not want to destroy it or the grounds.
I also support what my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said about not completely wiping out the village inside the circle. It is part of the charm of the layout. Some part of it could be removed with advantage, especially some of the Victorian cottages, but there are many small seventeenth and eighteenth century houses, including the small public house, which should be retained, and such parts of the outer circle as they may cover might be left for future generations of archaeologists to look at. It would be a great pity if we had the whole site completely cleared of houses, leaving a rather barren space in the middle of the Down-land. I hope that in any further restoration effort will be made to keep the better houses in the village.
Another point is that somewhere in the neighbourhood a car park ought to be constructed. Many visitors arrive by car and it would be appropriate to have a place where the cars would be hidden by trees so that they did not spoil the appearance of the site.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: A park is being made.

Mr. Parker: I am glad to hear that. I should like to impress upon the Minister the need for starting work once more.
I took up this question with the Minister's predecessor in 1952, and I was told then that all the financial resources of the Ministry of Works were being used in the examination of blitzed sites in London to see whether any remains of archaeological interest, such as the Temple of Mithras, could be recovered before rebuilding took place. Rebuilding has proceeded quite a lot since 1952 and it is now going on very rapidly. Very soon, there probably will be no sites left in London or other blitzed areas where there is a possibility of archaeological work being done. As soon as the opportunity to do any further work in those areas has passed, then the resources should be devoted first and foremost to work at Avebury.
In 1952, when I approached the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on this matter I received a letter, dated 10th April, 1952, in which the Minister stated:
The monument is so closely associated with Mr. Keiller, who has done so much for the site, that had we set out to continue the excavation we should have had no option but to co-operate very closely with him and there is no doubt that Mr. Keiller himself would have expected to have considerable influence over what was done. His methods of excavation are, however, far more costly than could be met from public funds.
I have no doubt from what Mr. Keiller personally said to me that the Minister's statement was quite justified. Mr. Keiller was willing to do the work, but he laid down very strong conditions. He wished to be in complete charge and to carry out the work in exactly the same expensive way as it had been carried out before the war. He was not prepared to alter his ideas in any way to meet the suggestions of the Ministry of Works. He wished to select his own assistants, and so on. Only if all his conditions were accepted was he fully prepared to cooperate in any way with the Ministry of Works.
A point of some interest is that he suggested that in the way in which he was carrying out the work when the war came in 1939 the whole would have been completed within ten years by working with a fairly small staff. Working with a fairly large staff and rapidly it could have been completed within six years. I do not know how far the Minister would agree with those estimates at the present time, but I suggest that some of the main work such as completing the restoration

of the circle and the avenue to West Kennet should be among the first priorities. This work should be done in a planned campaign over the next ten years and I would ask the Minister to prepare a plan and put it in hand to try to get the work completed in that period. I suggest that we might turn most of our resources for excavation to that job as soon as essential work in the blitzed towns has been completed.
I would suggest, further, that a competent architect be put in charge of the whole of the works at Avebury, both the preservation of what is there and the actual work of restoration. If the cost would be considerable, as the Minister may say, I suggest that in these days, when there are so many people interested in archaeology, it might be possible for some of the jobs to be tackled by a competent archaeologist using voluntary labour. There must be many people, not only older school boys but people on holiday, who would be prepared to do a lot of work of this kind were the facilities provided. It could be well done if it was adequately supervised, but it would be a bad thing if amateurs were allowed to do the work without adequate supervision. A number of these jobs might be tackled in this way and not all the excavations need be done at one time. Perhaps some of the smaller jobs might be tackled first as an experiment.
Mr. Keiller made a strong point to me three years ago about maintenance. He said that the maintenance was not in such good condition as just before the war at Avebury, and particularly at Windmill Hill. Mr. Keiller put that into good condition in 1937 when he finished the excavations there. When I visited the site three years ago not only was there long grass which had been allowed to grow over everything, but in a number of cases the soil had slipped in and there was barbed wire around most of it which made a proper inspection impossible. The condition may have been improved, but I suggest that the whole of that site should be better cared for.
I agree with the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) that a Ministry of Works site well looked after, surrounded by well cut turf, and so on, is a very pleasant sight. But when it is neglected, as the Windmill


Hill excavations were neglected and as much of Avebury has been neglected, it is a different story. I suggest that every effort should be made to get them back in good condition both Windmill Hill and the actual temple at Avebury. We should not regard these sites merely from the point of view of archaeological interest, but we should have regard to the actual amenities of the site, by which I mean that all the surroundings should be kept in good order. An example of where that has not been done is at Overton Hill, by the Bath Road, where there is one of the ugliest of transport cafes.
I am not saying that we do not need cafes on the Bath Road for the benefit of lorry drivers. But this one is sited very dangerously on a bend at the top of a hill and completely dominates the site of the Sanctuary Hill, with its seven barrows. I think that it should be moved to a safer site where it does not spoil the whole outlook and that the Ministry should concern itself not only with the actual preservation of sites, but of their surroundings, particularly when the site is upon the open downland, where any feature of this kind presents a far greater eyesore than when it is surrounded by trees.
Not only are these monuments of great historical value to our country, but they attract tourists who wish to visit not only places like Stonehenge but other monuments. When we have completed the restoration of the Stone Circle at Ave-bury we shall attract far more tourists there than at present. The need to attract foreign visitors should be borne in mind when the preservation of these monuments and their surroundings is thought about, and I hope that that point will be remembered when the expenditure on preserving these monuments is considered.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: Unlike the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), I cannot claim to have a constituency interest in ancient monuments. The only thing in Gravesend which might conceivably be called a monument is the tomb of Pocahontas, which looks awful and is preserved privately, and not by the Minister.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman at the commencement of his speech, but perhaps I should make it plain that my only constituency interest is that my constituency is near Avebury. I should like to say how sorry I am that the hon Member in whose constituency Avebury lies has not found it possible to take part in this debate, as I know his predecessor certainly would have done.

Mr. Kirk: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I know the area to which he refers fairly well. I was at school at Marlborough—I apologise that this debate looks like turning into an old Marlburians' debate, but as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has now left the Chamber, I doubt if there is a danger of a third successive speech by an old Marlburian.
I have covered the ground as a schoolboy and have been back to cover it again since then. I have a great love for Avebury and Stonehenge and many of the other less important but no less interesting monuments. Silbury Hill and Windmill Hill have been mentioned and there are various long barrows in that part of the world. The basic problem with which we are faced is that of preserving these places and finding funds for their excavation. The problem of preservation, particularly of the smaller barrows, is the biggest one which at present faces the Minister. As has been said by both the hon. Member for Swindon and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), many farmers are completely unaware that they have a barrow on their land at all, until one of the local museums or archaeological societies rises in its wrath to point out that a barrow has been destroyed. Farmers and local people should be made aware of the value of these historic monuments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch suggested various ways in which this could be done. I rather disagreed with him over the lack of value, as he seemed to suggest, of notices placed on the site. I was glad when the Ancient Monuments Board recommended the placing of notices on these sites, and I cannot see why, if the notices are attractively


designed, they need necessarily detract from the beauty of the sites.
I spent a part of this summer looking at the great stone monuments at Carnac, in Brittany, which are looked after very well by the French Ministry of Fine Arts. In every case but one they were clearly labelled with attractive metal labels which did not detract in any way from their beauty, but made them easy to find. In addition, the labels bore a brief note explaining how the site was found and drawing the attention of visitors to points of interest.
I cannot see that if the labelling were well done and if proper designers were employed, there would necessarily be a disadvantage in having such notices. I do not believe that notices are enough, however, and I very strongly support my hon. Friend's suggestion of an annual reminder to the owners of these sites that the sites are there and must be preserved, at least until the archaeologists have had time thoroughly to investigate them.
I think that the problem here, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), is in the preservation and excavation of these monuments. Where is the money to come from, because, though we should very much like it, we obviously cannot expect the Treasury to be prepared to pay the very considerable sum involved for a full and complete excavation of Avebury? I am a great believer in the principle that those who go to see places like Avebury and Stonehenge should pay for the privilege of doing so. As the hon. Member for Swindon stated, a charge is made for entry to Stonehenge. The hon. Gentleman thinks, and I should be very glad if it is so, that Stonehenge is making a profit.
While I agree that the sites are totally different—Stonehenge is much more concentrated than Avebury—I cannot see why something similar should not be possible at Avebury. Avebury has one road running through it north-south from Swindon to the Bath Road. I rather disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of that road. I think that the heavy traffic tends to go on to the road a few miles to the east, joining the Bath Road at Marlborough. It is true that I have only been there

during week-ends—and during the war—when heavy traffic tends to be much lighter. It did not, however, strike me, that it would be a very great inconvenience to charge a toll for traffic using that road, except in the case of drivers who could produce documents showing that they were using the road for business purposes of because they were local residents.
It would be perfectly possible, if and when the by-pass is completed, to do that, because then the village of Avebury could be sealed off and an entrance charge made to visitors. I know that this is likely to be a controversial suggestion, but by making such a charge a certain amount of funds could be raised with which to enable this very important work to go on. To my mind, the important parts are not only the Stone Circle and the Avenue. The whole village of Avebury, with the exception of certain houses should be preserved.
The church is one of the finest examples of mediaeval ecclesiastical architecture. It has a rood screen which, I think, is one of the best in the West of England. It should be much better known even than it is. Then there is the Manor House and the Hall. With the exception of the few Victorian cottages, the whole village forms a part of the picture with the Stone Circle and the Avenue, and I should be very strongly opposed to any suggestion that the Stone Circle should be cleared of buildings. We have there a picture of the whole civilisation of Britain from the earliest time to present, beginning with the building of the Stone Circle going on to the Manor House and even to the modern houses. It is vitally important that they should be preserved.
It is perfectly true that the excavation work has been halted for nearly twenty years, and it is about time that it was restarted. The gaps in the Avenue, and particularly the missing altar stone, are represented by really rather unbeautiful concrete blocks. Some effort, I think, might have been made to harmonise the marks showing where the stones should be in relation to the existing stones. In these circumstances, I feel that the Minister would be doing' a great service to the cause of archaeological research in


the country if he could give the go-ahead signal for further excavations at Avebury.
I wish to ask a question about the proposed reconstruction of the Trilithon at Stonehenge. My hon. Friend said that the Ministry had done some marvellous reconstruction at various places. I am a little worried about this one. We know that the stones were standing a few centuries ago, but no one knows where. It would be unfortunate if we were to put them back into positions where we only thought they might have been originally. If we are going to reconstruct that arch, might it not be a good thing, if we were certain that we knew where it went, to try to complete the reconstruction with other stones? Whether it is better to keep the stones in their former position or attempt a full reconstruction is a matter for consideration.
I have one further point to make about another monument not very far away, but which is not mentioned in the Motion. The Motion is a little circumscribed: it refers to the South-West. The Uffington group is on the Berkshire Downs and, I think, comes within the area. It consists of the White Horse above the downs at Wantage, with Uffington Castle above it—a pre-Roman fort of great antiquity—with the Ridgeway running between. At the foot of the hill there is the Blowing Stone where hon. Members on the payment of 1s. can raise a noise rather like that created by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) when raising a point of order.
A little farther on is Wayland Smith's Cave. That is in a disgraceful state, and there is no excuse for the condition into which that very ancient monument has deteriorated at the present time. There is a notice board which says that it is Wayland Smith's Cave, but even that notice is in a rusted and almost unreadable condition. The cave itself is overgrown. When taking German visitors to see the cave, I have been ashamed. The Germans are naturally very interested because the legend of Wayland Smith is as strong in Germany as in this country. Many of them have said that it was a horrible way in which to treat what is a very old and famous monument. I urge the Minister to try to do something about the Uffington group and also about Wayland Smith's Cave.

12.18 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure that the whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) for having taken the opportunity which fell to him in winning a first place in the Ballot to raise for discussion today this important subject. I believe it is of considerable value that the House should, from time to time, show both its appreciation and its concern of the work done by the Ancient Monuments Board to preserve our priceless heritage of ancient monuments. My hon. Friend is also to be congratulated in having such a wealth of ancient monuments both in his constituency and in the surrounding area.
I should like to approach to the problem by paying my tribute to the work of the Ancient Monuments Board in the preservation of the many historic monuments in their charge, not only the ruined mediaeval shrines, but also the Roman forts like those at Richborough, Pevensey and elsewhere, and the prehistoric monuments as well. It is unfortunate that Avebury has been allowed to fall into a state of relative neglect, compared to the excellent state of preservation of so many other historic sites. It is especially unfortunate when one recalls the tremendous significance of Avebury in prehistoric times.
I tabled an Amendment to the Motion—which I do not propose to move, because it would limit the debate—because it seemed to me that, in considering how the Ancient Monuments Board should spend the relatively small amount of money which it is allowed by the Treasury at present, we have to think of priorities. As I hoped it would, this debate is ranging not only over problems of excavation but also of preservation, and one cannot help realising from what has been said already that, important though the work of future excavation may be, the work of preservation is of paramount importance, in view of the danger which threatens so many ancient monuments by reason both of agricultural and other work.
I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) has said about the condition of Wayland Smith's Cave, in the Uffington group. I was there recently and noticed that it is in a deplorably neglected condition. I


hope that as a result of this debate the Minister will be able to give us a general indication of the amount of care and attention which his Department is able to give to monuments of that kind, as well as to the more famous sites which I have mentioned and which, as I have said, are generally very well preserved.
It is regrettable that Avebury has been allowed to suffer from comparative neglect. I was there one day last year. Like my hon. Friend, I want to pay a tribute to the work done by the curator, Mr. Young, who is not only most knowledgeable, but most helpful in showing visitors round the museum and explaining the significant features of the circle itself. It is a quite impossible task for him and his one assistant to manage both the work of looking after the museum—which, if I recollect rightly, is open from about 9 a.m. until late at night—and also of maintaining the great circle and the stones.
The real complaint of my hon. Friend and others who take an interest in this matter is that there is inadequate staff at Avebury to keep this important monument in a respectable condition. The grass is allowed to grow, and the appearance, especially in the north-west corner, is very often untidy. I should have thought that if another assistant could be provided to do some of the work of keeping the monument in a state of respectability it would meet the case.
I am not so sure that I agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of undertaking further excavations at Ave-bury at present. I imagine that that must depend both upon the financial resources available and the kind of priorities which are determined for works of archaeological research in general. As the Minister is aware, although his Department, to its credit, does some notable works of archaeological excavation, it has not been responsible for the major works of archaeological excavation which have taken place in the last thirty or forty years.
Excavation of some of the most famous sites, like Verulamium, Maiden Castle, and others, have been undertaken by the Society of Antiquaries or local archaeological societies, voluntarily organised and supported, and it may well be that if funds could be made available it would

be better if the work of excavation—which is so highly skilled in these days—as distinct from that of preservation, were entrusted to the Society of Antiquaries and other archaeological bodies.
We recognise, of course, that it is with the valuable assistance of the grant which the Minister made to the City of London Roman and Mediaeval Preservation Fund that the very important work which has been done in London in this field since the war has been able to take place. The site where Mr. Grimes found the Temple of Mithras last year is an example of archaeological excavation privately undertaken but supported by a financial grant from the Ministry. I should have thought that that was the better approach, and would have hoped that, important though it is that Avebury should be further excavated in due course, the Minister would agree that at present the emphasis should be laid first upon the adequate maintenance of places like Avebury, Wayland Smith's Cave and many others, which are known, and, secondly, upon the vitally important work of preserving from destruction so many of the ancient monuments which are threatened.
The hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch has referred to the Report of the Ancient Monuments Board, of which he is a distinguished member, with regard to earthworks and barrows. The situation is most alarming and is one in connection with which we must press the Minister to give us some very definite and categorical reassurances. I shall not quote again from the Report of the Board, but I will quote two paragraphs from the Report of the Council for British Archaeology, for 1954, as some indication of the widespread damage which is being done to this class of monuments. The Report says:
In Dorset, the attrition by agricultural and other agencies of unscheduled monuments continues largely unnoted and unchecked.
Later, it says that
ploughing has been carried out over the top of certain barrows in the Lambourn Seven Barrows group, and others …
which are nearby.
In Sussex, ploughing on the downland has damaged several monuments, notably on Tegdown, near Patcham …
That is typical of conditions in other counties. When the Manton Down barrows were destroyed a great deal of


public attention was directed to the matter. Questions were raised, in the House and assurances given, and we must ask the Minister for some categorical answers to certain questions.
I would begin by reminding the right hon. Gentleman of what his predecessor said in answer to a Question which I put on 22nd July, 1953, when we were considering the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Bill. I asked for an assurance that his Department would cooperate with the many local, county and other archaeological societies throughout the country which were most anxious that a proper scheme of co-ordination should be arranged to assist in the work of preserving these ancient monuments.
An assurance was given by the present Minister of Education, who said:
We intend to have conversations with the appropriate bodies which are interested in ancient monuments, and I agree that a great deal can be done by administration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 518–9.]
Would the Minister please tell us whether these conversations have taken place and with what result?
Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister what co-ordination takes place between his Department and the Ordnance Survey run by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not think that this is the time to develop that, but I sometimes wonder whether the Ancient Monuments Board is really best fitted into our administrative machinery in the Ministry of Works. It often seems to me to have a very tenuous connection with the other activities of the Ministry's works and it may perhaps suffer in that respect, but, however that may be, it is no use the Minister excusing 'his failure to deal with this subject through lack of funds unless he avails himself of all the opportunities of supporting all the other available causes.
The Ordnance Survey is constantly patrolling the country, bringing the Survey up-to-date and marking ancient monuments on the various series of maps. Is there some proper system of co-ordination with the Ordnance Survey for seeing that the scheduled monuments are preserved undamaged and are not in danger of destruction?
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will tell us that he has not abandoned the proposal that all scheduled monuments should be clearly marked. This was a distinct recommendation made by the Report of the Ancient Monuments Board, and although the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch, I was sorry to see, rather resiled from his own share of responsibility of having signed that Report, surely we shall not ever have a satisfactory solution to this problem unless there is some proper system in mind. It ought not to be very difficult to mark at any rate most, if not all, of these ancient monuments by some label which indicates their historical nature.
It is in that way that local farmers, visitors and others can know that there is something which should be saved from destruction. I agree that no system of scheduling or marking is of itself sufficient unless there is a method of regular inspection, and, therefore, as I have said, I think the key to this problem is a proper system of inspection with which all the interested and available bodies are associated.
There is another matter in which, I think, the Ministry have been remiss in the past, and that is in not taking sufficiently energetic steps to prevent the destruction of important monuments when brought to their notice. There was a case, for example, at Great Chesterford earlier in the year. One must give the Ministry credit for having arranged for a very important Anglo-Saxon burial ground to be inspected before works on the site were completed, but, unfortunately, the Ministry allowed a great deal of destruction to take place while the work of excavation was in progress.
If the Minister had been more energetic at the time, notice could have been given to prevent that destruction, and I hope that the Minister will make sure that the machinery in his Department as between the Ancient Monuments Board and those responsible for prosecuting those who deliberately destroy important monuments of this kind is more tightly co-ordinated.
Reference has been made to Stonehenge. Stonehenge, in my opinion, is one of our ancient monuments where the Ministry is entitled to the greatest credit both for the way in which the monument is preserved, for the way in which visitors


have access to it and information about it, for the booklet which is on sale, and for the general publicity given to it. In view of the very great interest in Stonehenge, I hope that the Minister will today be able to tell us whether he has yet arrived at a decision on the recommendations of the Ancient Monuments Board that the trilithon which they recommended should be re-erected under the supervision of Professor Stuart Pigott is to be re-erected or not.
My own opinion, for what it is worth, is contrary to the opinion of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) that it should be re-erected. I agree with the Ancient Monuments Board when it says:
Since there is reason to believe that the state of Stonehenge is in part due to the deliberate destruction by the Romans, there is strong reason for leaving things as they are.
That, however, does not apply where there is evidence that particular stones consisting of one of the famous trilithons, fell down during towards the eighteenth century, and where there is evidence which would enable that particular portal to be re-erected with precision on the site in which, until 150 years or so ago, it had stood for centuries.

12.40 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Like other hon. Members, I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has made a singularly felicitious choice in his selection of this Motion for today's debate. He has not only raised a matter which is of specific and urgent importance in regard to certain monuments and has asked questions which must be answered by the Minister today, but he has opened up a far wider question. This is no mere constituency matter. Otherwise no doubt the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Pott) would either have been here, or would have written to the mover of the Motion, or would have sent some message through an hon. Member on the Government side of the House.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reply in triplicate to the terms of the Motion. He will reply, first, as Minister of Works in relation to the very difficult task that the Ministry has to carry out, in looking after such a wide range of monuments, and deciding, within the very narrow budget allowed to it, how much it can do towards development and how

much towards preservation in so many different fields. He can reply also on behalf of the Government as a whole in relation to the possibility of co-operation with other Ministries. I am thinking particularly of the Ministry of Education. I also hope, since this is a Private Member's Motion, that he will not be afraid to speak to some extent as a Private Member and give his views on the sort of future policy which ought to be developed.
We shall not get wide public understanding and support for the sort of thing that has been asked for today unless we have a general understanding of the social and educational purpose of archaeological research and the preservation of archaeological monuments and records. In the last few weeks a certain amount of interest has been shown in the House in the development of technological education. I made a remark myself, calling attention to the difference between the fifty geologists trained in British universities and the 2,400 trained per year in Chinese universities. The only result of that epoch-making remark, Mr. Speaker, was that I was called to order and I have no doubt that I should be called to order again if I attempted to develop it now.
"Radio Newsreel" gave a report of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) addressing the younger members of his constituency and urging that attention should be paid to this matter. Only yesterday a number of Questions appeared on the Order Paper pressing the Minister of Education for the development of technological education. Among them was heard the still, small, and usually sane voice of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who said that perhaps the greater Powers and wealthier nations might well be allowed to pursue the development of technological education and scientific training, but we had a duty to maintain our position in the fields of the arts and the humanities.
No doubt it would appear to you, Mr. Speaker, that I should be wildly out of order if I were to speak of certain Hamitic masks which came from Ife in Nigeria to this country a few years ago and received a tremendous ovation from archaeologists and historians; and also if I referred to the visit which was paid


to this House by the Oni of Ife, clad in robes which rivalled even the splendour of your own. There is in this the curious coincidence that not only did those masks, which had been of such sacred importance in West Africa for many centuries, in all probability come from the same centre of civilisation as that from which flowed those who built the monuments in south-west England but that the Oni, like the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, is a railwayman.
I am glad to refer to the need to switch interest in this immensely important subject to the broad field of educational organisation in this country. The Ministry of Works would be the first to agree that we can no longer depend upon the interest of conscientious land owners or the historical hobbies of occasionally eccentric diplomats.
In the next 50 years there is the chance that the world will become sane again, and that vast projects will be undertaken for raising the standard of life and recovering the productivity and fruitfulness of large areas of the world from which civilisations in the past have had to depart, perhaps through the ignorance and folly of man, or perhaps because of climatic and geographic changes. Many schemes are on foot. Some have been attempted on the smallest scale, but with the most brilliant hopes, of restoring the fruitfulness of deserts, by scientists archaeologists and planners.
A day or two ago I was reading of an engineering scheme for restoring the Mediterranean to its previous shape by lowering the level of the water and so releasing a lot more land around it. When these schemes begin to be studied, those who make the final decisions will need the help of those who, in the arts and humanities, have put much patient study and many years of work in trying to find out something about people who lived in those areas in the past and about the reasons for their migrations.
Hidden away in our own country are records and evidence which, for aught we know, may be of tremendous importance. I shall not refer to the age or date of any monument in south-west England today, not from fear of being wrong—because I am almost certain to be wrong—but from fear of being out of fashion.

Dates that are attributed today may very well be altered in the minds of scholars in 10 or 20 years time as the result of one single piece of information.
I am perfectly able to sympathise with the mood of archaeologists today, as instanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, in not wanting too much excavation done. They know how much damage has been done by amateurs. They begin to realise, but with a certain respect, the amount of damage that has been done by their immediate predecessors in digging too enthusiastically. Now they are tending, on sites of major importance, to limit their activities to exploratory shafts and excavations so that they can decide exactly what is of the greatest value and information and what may be left for careful examination later.
We are discussing today the question of barrows. That, surely is a job which could be methodically done in cooperation with some of the extra-mural studies and the broader range of educational work that is developing in this country at present. Varying with the enthusiasm of local organisers, a surprising number of research projects is being undertaken in the counties and remote districts in this country in these days. Sometimes, for instance, the discovery of a store of old manuscripts in a country house will give an opportunity to a local education authority to organise a really important study group of people who can examine the documents and can learn the technique of research.
Learning the technique of research in archaeology is very difficult indeed, in view of the importance of the material on which beginners may be turned loose. The most that is asked is that before the barrows are removed they shall be carefully dug and examined. I think that is the view of the middle-of-the-road school, which accepts the fact that many of the barrows must disappear but maintains that they must be carefully examined.
I think that work could be undertaken by the Ministry of Education. I am not now claiming that the Ministry could produce a new race of trained archaeologists but that it could bring in people who, many years later, might find themselves in administrative posts or in public life. When faced with pleas from scientists for streamlining, mechanisation and


so on, they would be able to bear in mind the rôle to be played by the arts and the humanities in the raising of human standards of living. While having, perhaps, little practical experience, they would take a commonsense viewpoint of what has been called "our" past. It is our past not only as British people but as citizens of the world to which we are addressing ourselves this morning. The monuments in south-west England are of concern, not only to the inhabitants there, but to archaeologists and students of human history all over the world.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I should like to add my word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) for demonstrating that this House is concerned not only with mundane bread-and-butter affairs, but also with cultural and historical subjects. I am particularly interested in this subject, as I was born within a short distance of Stonehenge and my earliest recollections are of that wonderful monument. I have seen it at almost all times of the day and night in summer and winter, and remember it best, perhaps, when it stood out so clearly on a snow-covered Salisbury Plain.
I hope that the Minister will not interfere with Stonehenge too much. I know that the barbed wire is necessary for protection, but I trust that he will not be persuaded to dig a trench around it to hide the barbed wire. To do so would make more difficult the explanation of archaeologists two or three hundred years hence who, even then, will, I hope, be studying this remarkable monument. I hope, also, that the right hon. Gentleman will not do too much reconstruction. Where a stone is leaning, it is obviously right to straighten it. Where, from the dowel marks—if that be the right term—from the marks in the stone and in the supporting stone it is obvious that there has been a trilithon, it may be justifiable to re-erect this, but I hope that, otherwise, Stonehenge may be kept very much as it was when I was a very young boy.
Although I have been to Avebury I know less of it; I do know that there are many problems still unsolved. It seems extraordinary that whereas in Maiden Castle, near Dorchester, and most of the ancient camps the vallum or wall is on

the inner side of the ditch, it is on the outer side at Avebury. I have seen the same thing in stone circles in Derbyshire, notably at Arbor Low. That fact still awaits explanation. On one occasion when I was at Avebury work was proceeding on the Avenue to demonstate, by the depressions in the chalk, where stones had stood. Before erecting a stone our ancestors used to dig a depression in the chalk and then fix the stone into it by wedging other stones around it. It is very sad that so many of these stones have gone. I understand that, not so many years ago, farmers used to build a fire around a stone. When it was thoroughly hot they threw buckets of water on the stone so as to crack and then remove it. Their object was mainly agricultural. They did not need the stone for building purposes because, in that district, there is plenty of Sarsen stone on the surface.
I once had the pleasure of spending a week in walking along the Ridgeway to Avebury. The Ridgeway is an ancient British trackway, extensively used when a good deal of the surrounding country was swamp and forest. That walk brought me near to some of the monuments which have been mentioned—Wayland Smith's Cave, the Long Man of Wilmington and one of the most ancient of the White Horses. Everything possible should be done to preserve these ancient trackways. They are, in truth, ancient monuments. They are marked by dew ponds, by groups of trees and by sighting tumps. I would ask the Minister to give those tumps his special attention. In the Chilterns, where I live, there is an ancient trackway marked mainly by dew ponds. There are also sighting tumps on elevations to mark the track. I found such a tump in a friend's garden, but he had no idea of its significance It is simple to distinguish man-made from natural rises in the ground.
I support the suggestion that it would be good, not only that these monuments should be inspected, but that people who have such monuments on their estates should be reminded of the importance of preserving them. I do not want all monuments to be dug up or critically examined at present, but we ought not to destroy something simply because we do not yet understand its meaning or significance. I have already spoken of the past vandalism of the farmers at


Avebury. Let us be sure that now, when the struggle for existence is less keen, we do not allow the same mistake to be made. I would ask the Minister carefully to record every ancient monument, as I know he is already doing, and to inspect any further that come to light, and also and at frequent intervals to remind the owners of land where such monuments are of their importance and the necessity—indeed, their duty to future generations—of doing all they can to preserve them.

1.0 p.m.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Have the Government considered doing as the Danes have done at Aarhus or the Canadians at Saskatoon? The Canadians have, at Saskatoon, a huge collection of old farming implements, fire engines and vehicles used at different times from the earliest days of Canadian history. At Aarhus the Danes have built a village of typical old houses of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and onwards. They took them to pieces where they found them and re-erected them in that village.
There is an old mill house with an old mill wheel still turning. There is a stream there with ducks on it. There is a mayor's ancient house with the original furniture and other period furniture and a typical garden of the times, with a summerhouse. There are other houses of the kind inhabited by private folk and by traders, and many have the old-time signs over the doors, such as the turner's wheel and other specimens of the turner's craft. It is a typical village of houses of the types built through the centuries. It pays for its upkeep by the sale of postcards and booklets, and by attracting thousands of tourists from all parts of the world who want to see it.
Can we do something like that here? Many historical buildings have to be destroyed in the cause of progress. If some of these ancient and historical relics which are on private property and are never seen by the public could be moved to where they could be seen it would be a great advantage to our country, and if we were to build a village to contain them it would attract thousands of tourists here, and even Stratford-on-Avon would have a powerful rival. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this idea.

I would draw his attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Barber) has also seen that Danish village and can support what I say, and I can show my right hon. Friend plenty of photographs of it to illustrate my suggestion.

1.2 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I think we all want to join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) on moving this Motion, on the way in which he did it and also on having chosen this subject for debate. It is, as he said, a somewhat narrow subject, but nevertheless it is one, I think, of vital importance to the whole of the country.
My hon. Friend, perhaps because he was trying to compress his remarks into as short a time as possible, I think conveyed a slightly wrong impression in referring to there being 62 of these monuments in Wiltshire. That is the number which the Ancient Monuments Board suggested last year should be scheduled. I think the figure of existing scheduled monuments is about 400, and there are probably 300 more ancient monuments in Wiltshire which are worthy of scheduling.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, the interest in this subject is not confined to those hon. Members who have constituency interests. I think the importance of the area consists in the fact that that was the area which was the meeting point of the two main streams of immigration into this country many thousands of years ago. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) in treating dates with reserve, but I suppose it was about two thousand years before Christ that the stream of immigration from southern Europe and the stream of immigration from the Baltic across Germany converged in Wiltshire. The Baltic and German immigrants came across Holland to East Anglia, and then, following the Icknield Way, remained in the area which has been discussed today. It is obviously an area of quite outstanding archaeological interest.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon put Stonehenge into the right perspective by contrast with Avebury, and I wish that the public


would realise that Avebury is so much more important than the much better known monument at Stonehenge. I would ask the Minister to tell us what his plans are for Stonehenge. I do not share the apprehension of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) about the proposal of the Ancient Monuments Board to re-erect certain of the stones. I think it quite clear from the Loggan drawings that it will be possible to re-erect the trilithon in almost, if not exactly, its original place. The fact that stones in the outer circle fell as recently as 1899 suggests that it will be possible to re-erect them with reasonable certitude of putting them in their original position.
Of Avebury, I think it would be true to say that a good deal of the original damage has now been repaired. I hope the Minister will tell us that he is pressing on with the necessary work of repair. I would support my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon in pleading for more generous treatment for Avebury not only so that the necessary repairs can be effected but also so that further deterioration can be avoided.
So far as other monuments are concerned, and particularly the barrows to which some hon. Members have referred, damage is still continuing, unfortunately, and the rate of damage may be expedited during the next few years unless some positive action is taken by the Minister. We have been reminded today how public opinion was aroused by what happened at Manton Down and to the Normanton Barrow, and I think that the House is entitled to claim some credit for the fact that a number of hon. Members during the last few years have helped to concentrate public opinion on the problem. I would mention especially my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who was a most persistent questioner of the Minister at the time of the damage to which I have referred. The hon. Member for East Bournemouth, and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) also has been active about this matter, and we enjoyed his speech today.
In common with other hon. Members, I would say how disappointed I feel that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Pott) should not have found it possible to be here to carry on the work which his predecessor, Mr. Christopher Hollis, used

to do in this House so effectively. Mr. Hollis has always been most helpful and wise upon these subjects, and I should have liked to have thought that the constituents of Devizes were to be as well represented in this Parliament as they were in the last one.
The anxiety expressed on a number of occasions in the past on this subject was, I think, fully justified when we read the Report of the Ancient Monuments Board for last year. I suppose it would be true to say that there are three main causes of damage. The first is vandalism, which has always taken place. It no doubt results from some deep-rooted psychological cause, or just plain common ignorance. At any rate, it is not nowadays the kind of vandalism that occurred in the days of John Evelyn who, visiting Stonehenge, spent a night at an inn the landlord of which said he always lent a hammer to his guests so that they could chip away a little bit of Stonehenge and take it with them as a keepsake. Vandalism, of course, still continues, and I suppose only education and growing appreciation can end it.
The second cause of damage is change in the physical circumstances of an area because of rehousing schemes, industrial development, or requirements of the Service Departments. The third cause of damage is the new methods of cultivation, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred. Now that we have much more deep ploughing, the use of bulldozers and other mechanical aids, it is clear that the threat to barrows and other ancient monuments is increasing as the days go by.
What is to be done about this very important problem? Both today and over the last two years we have had a number of suggestions about action which the Minister could usefully take. I know that some of them have been accepted by the Minister, but it might be helpful if we recapitulated the suggestions made and gave the Minister an opportunity of making a comprehensive statement about the steps which his Department has taken.
I might deal first with the suggestions made by the Ancient Monuments Board. The first was that there should be some sign erected upon these monuments. I join with the hon. Member for Gravesend in saying how effective the method used at Carnac is in this connection. I do


not share the views of some hon. Members that sign-posting of that kind would have a deleterious effect on the amenities of the monument itself. I had expected two years ago that the Minister was going ahead with the proposal, because Mr. St. John O'Neil, whose death many of us regard as a personal loss, made a speech at Trowbridge on 4th October last year in which he referred to the Minister's intention to erect signposts of this kind. They were to be non-corrosive metal plates on posts 5 ft. or 6 ft. high. I should like to know why that plan, which appeared to be accepted at the time, has since been abandoned.
In addition, the Ancient Monuments Board suggested that more frequent notice should be given to the owners and occupiers of land on which ancient monuments are sited, and that there should be a strengthening of the present system of having county correspondents. The Board also suggested that there should be close liaison with the Ordnance Survey and other Government Departments, particularly Service Departments, and that the Ministry of Agriculture should include a reference to this problem in the circulars which it sends out to landowners.
Mr. Grimes, the Secretary of the Council for British Archaeology, suggested some time ago that the six-month period after which the Minister cannot prosecute for damage to scheduled monuments should be extended to give the Ministry greater latitude to take punitive action against people who have done damage to such monuments. He also suggested that there should be much more frequent inspection than is possible at the moment. That links very well with the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Bournemouth, and Christchurch that amateur archaeologists should be called in to help in this connection. Another suggestion came from the Clerk of Tarrant Gunville Parish Council, who proposed that the Minister should send out leaflets to parish councils emphasising the importance of this problem and directing them to keep an eye on ancient monuments in their areas.
On 23rd August last year a special correspondent, writing in The Times, suggested that scheduling should be more extensive than it is at the moment, and

that for this purpose the Minister should appoint more inspectors of ancient monuments. The Times argued that this was very necessary indeed because if at present a monument is not scheduled it is not State-protected and therefore no legal action can be taken. The Times concluded with the remark that the work of scheduling is now a race against time.
I hope that in the light of these suggestions which I have summarised the Minister will be able to tell us what steps have been taken and which of the recommendations he has felt able to accept. When his predecessor, on 27th September last year, opened an excellent exhibition arranged by The Times he made one of the most poignant observations. He said:
I am embarrassed because there is so much good I could do and I have so little to do it with.
That is at the very foundation of the problem which we are discussing today. On the same occasion, Sir Mortimer Wheeler remarked that the Ancient Monuments Act, 1931, and its administration are the best in the world. I think that all of us would agree both with the aspirations of the Minister on that occasion and with the tribute which Sir Mortimer Wheeler felt it proper to pay. None of us in the House would for a moment dream of criticising either the Ancient Monuments Board or the inspectors of ancient monuments.
I had occasion, when discussing the Historic Buildings Bill two or three years ago, to pay a tribute to the inspectors of ancient monuments, and I should like to do so again this morning. They are doing a wonderful job, unfortunately with too small a staff and too little money, though I want to pay tribute to the Minister for the fact that the amount which his Department is spending on the work is more this year than ever in the history of the Department. The inspectors deserve encouragement of that kind, and certainly need more financial help than they are receiving at the moment.
I started by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon on the way in which he opened the debate. I conclude by hoping that the debate will have served a useful purpose in bringing the problem to the attention of the public, in enabling us to congratulate the


Minister's inspectors, and perhaps in giving the Minister some strength and incentive to fight a little harder against the dead hand of the Exchequer.

1.17 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has been almost weighed down by tributes today, but I feel that I should add mine. I thought that his study of the subject had been thorough, and that he was extremely well briefed. As we all know, it is much easier to be briefed when one is a Minister than when one is a back bencher. The hon. Member's points were extremely good and I shall try to answer them.
I was very glad that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) paid a tribute to the work that has been done in connection with ancient monuments, because it is rarely that we have a chance of debating this subject. We get a few Questions, but naturally and rightly, they are generally directed to something that is wrong. The ninety-nine cases out of a hundred where things are going right are never mentioned at all.
Fortunately, this is a non-party question, and I should like to say how well the work on ancient monuments is done and how much I have been impressed by it. When I go about the country on Ministry of Works' business, or on holidays, or even to make a political speech, I always try to see some of the monuments nearby which we have in our guardianship. I am always impressed by how well they are kept, and also by the custodians. Many of these men, who do not get very high pay, lead dedicated lives. They live for the monuments which they look after. They know the history of the monuments and they have a flow of excellent information for visitors. They are not easy men to get or to replace, but I will come to that point again in a minute.
This debate deals with south-west England, and I want to put the matter in its right perspective. The number of monuments which the Ministry of Works has in guardianship and is entirely responsible for preserving, managing and maintaining, is 600 in England, Scotland and Wales. Those which are listed, or scheduled, however, amount to 9,000. This means that the owner should not do anything about them without giving us

three months' notice. In south-west England we have nearly 60 monuments in guardianship, and nearly 2,000 are listed. There has been speculation about the number listed in Wiltshire; for anyone who is interested, the number is 529.
The hon. Member for Rossendale referred to expenditure. There has been a tendency for expenditure on ancient monuments to increase. In 1945–1946, it was £67,000; in 1950–1951 it was £267,000; and in the current year it will be £522,000. Four-fifths of this expenditure is on maintenance, repairs and excavations. As has been pointed out in the debate, the number of qualified inspectors and assistant inspectors on this work in the Ministry of Works is not great, amounting, in all, to 18.
Much of this debate has been devoted to Avebury, so I will deal with it first. It is not possible to give an exact figure of attendances because, as has been said, there is no charge made for viewing the circle, but only for looking at the museum. Therefore, only those who visit the latter are recorded. Before the war the museum was visited by between 6,000 and 7,000 people a year. So far this year about 11,500 people have visited it, so attendance is increasing.
Complaint has been made about the state of Avebury; I think that some of it has been a little overdone. The difficulty has been that one of the custodians died in May this year and so far we have not been able to replace him. We are taking as active steps as possible, and we are trying to find accommodation, since it will only be possible to get a replacement in that way.
I was asked why there have been no recent excavations there. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) had the right answer. We intend to start again on a limited scheme of digging—and I say "limited" advisedly, because it would be wrong at such a great monument to do the whole work now. It is not a question of money. It is not even a question of qualified staff. The main reason for hastening slowly in these matters is the rapid advance that is taking place in the science of archaeology. In the last twenty-five years there has been a great improvement in excavation methods and in sorting out the different layers. The technique is associated particularly with Sir Mortimer Wheeler. I


am told that as result of Professor Piggot excavating one stone hole at Stonehenge in 1954 more was found out than by excavating a whole quadrant in 1920.
Then there is an interesting development known as Carbon 14 dating. This consists of measuring the radioactive decay in carbon, and this means that we can measure the age of wood. There has also been a considerable advance in the examination of animal bones, by which we can tell at what time of the year a site was occupied.
I do not know whether it is in order to criticise politicians, but if it is I think we can say about them that they tend sometimes to take short views. It is refreshing to talk to an archaeologist who takes the great sweep of history and thinks in thousands of years. If we take the long view, it seems a mistake to hurry too fast in these matters; and we do not intend to do so.
The hon. Member for Swindon raised the question of publicity for Avebury. It is in our guide to the area and it will also appear in what I hope will prove to be a good guide which Country Life will produce next spring, and which will include ancient monuments and historic buildings. This should prove useful for tourists. Avebury was also shown recently on television, which has done a lot for archaeology, since great interest has been stimulated by various television programmes.
On the question of the proposed bypass around Avebury, its course has been agreed by the Ministry, though I cannot say when work will start. However, it will be done in due course.
Several hon. Members mentioned the question of leaving Avebury village standing. That is an interesting suggestion. I would not like to pronounce on it finally today, but we have plenty of time because there is no question of pulling it down. Buildings have only been removed when they were falling down, and we have twenty or thirty years to reflect upon this problem. There is a great deal to be said for leaving some of the village there. Avebury Manor was also mentioned. This is in private occupation and is well-kept. I understand that it is to be opened to the public. What will happen in the future is a

hypothetical question which we need not deal with at the moment.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister answer the question I asked: was the house offered to the nation, either to the National Trust or to the Ministry, and turned down?

Mr. Birch: Negotiations took place with Mr. Keiller, but they did not result in the nation taking it over.
The hon. Member for Swindon asked about the attendance at Stonehenge and the financial results. In 1947–48 80,000 people were there. Now the attendance is running at a rate of between 160,000 and 170,000 a year, so it has more or less doubled over the last six or seven years which is satisfactory. Receipts are between £6,000 and £7,000 a year, and outgoings between £2,000 and £3,000 a year, and therefore we make a profit at Stonehenge. It is the only monument in the guardianship of my Ministry which makes a profit; it is unique.
The question of the staff at Stonehenge was raised. We are short of one custodian there. We have a house for him, and at the moment we are interviewing candidates. I believe that the problem there can be solved.
We must have a fence round Stonehenge to prevent damage. The fence has been approved by the Ancient Monuments Board. It would be a mistake to have a sunken fence, for it is undesirable archaeologically to dig round Stonehenge for that purpose. I understand that an underground tool shed will be tacked on to the lavatory which has been built, and the existing tool shed will be removed soon.
An important question was raised which concerns the recommendation of the Ancient Monuments Board about the trilithon. This is a very important matter and we do not want to rush it. Stonehenge has been there for some time and will be there for some time in the future. I intend to adopt the recommendation made by the Board. It involves certain limited movements of stones and the re-erection of one trilithon. It will not be done next year. It requires to be very carefully planned, as it is a very difficult technical business, and we want to embark upon it with the greatest possible care and to be


certain that we are not making any mistakes.
Many hon. Members have spoken about long barrows and round barrows, and damage done to them. It is true, and deeply regrettable, that a certain amount of damage has been done, though it is fair to say that most of it was done during the war. As to the scale of the problem, 2,000 barrows are listed, and 400 of them are in Wiltshire. The list is being added to all the time, and we have made a concentrated effort in Wiltshire.
What can be done to stop the damage, and what is being done? The first and most important thing is that there should be mutual information, so that everyone shall know about the barrows, not only owners, but local authorities and so on. We have taken great trouble to cooperate with local planning officers, and there has been very good co-operation with my inspectors. There has also been very good co-operation with agricultural executive committees, a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Rossendale. These committees are now sending round, with the forms connected with ploughing grants, reminders about the importance of sparing barrows. The committees are furnished with the lists of the scheduled monuments. This has proved extremely effective.
We also do everything we can to cooperate with local archaeological societies, and we have county correspondents working directly with my Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments. We have recently gone into the matter of co-operation with the Ordnance Survey very carefully, and we think that our co-operation with that Department is as good as it can be. Some hon. Members have spoken as if the Ordnance Survey could do everything. Very often those who are the correspondents of the Archaeological Department of the Survey are the very people who are our own county correspondents. The real reason why the Ordnance Survey cannot do everything is that our work starts where it leaves off. The Ordnance Survey records the monument on the map and may inform us, but our job is to list it and to try to ensure that it is preserved.
There are two other things that we have done about which I am particularly

keen. Several hon. Members have mentioned the importance of reminding people about the monuments. We have an arrangement now by which people will be notified, not every year, I fear, but certainly every five years or less.
There is something else that we have recently instituted. Not everyone agreed with it, but I am sure it is right. When we schedule a monument, if it is at all possible we visit the people on the site, point out the monument to them and tell them why it is important. The system in the past was simply to give them a printed form. The key to the problem is to obtain the interest and co-operation of the owners or the farmers who may do the ploughing. That is the only way in which any good can be done.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: If the right hon. Gentleman decides to signpost monuments, will he consider not merely saying that they are ancient monuments, but giving a fairly simple description of what they represent for the benefit of casual visitors, or soldiers driving tanks, which have in the past caused a great deal of damage?

Mr. Birch: I was about to say a word on that subject and to explain what is really going on. Labelling is a difficult question to decide. The hon. Member for Rossendale mentioned the late Mr. St. John O'Neil. Mr. O'Neil was violently opposed to the labelling of monuments. The reason it is a difficult problem is that 9,000 of these places are scheduled and it would take a very long time, as well as being expensive, to label them all. Also, labels are easily removed. If, therefore, someone sees something which is not labelled, when it is known that the practice is to label monuments, he may say "This is fair game".
Labelling would occupy a tremendous amount of the time of my inspectors and other people, who might be better employed elsewhere, and also cost money, and I am not certain that it would not lead to worse difficulties than we have now. My hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) said that he had previously liked the idea of labelling, but had now decided that he did not like it any more. I do not absolutely rule out labelling, but I feel doubtful whether, on balance, it is the right thing to do.
I was asked whether some extension could be made of the period during which proceedings may he taken. In the 1953 Act the period was, in fact, extended from six months to twelve months, so some improvement has been made.
I have tried to deal with the very large number of points which have been raised. If there are any which I have not covered, I will write to the hon. Members concerned. I should like to conclude by saying how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Swindon and also to the hon. Member for Rossendale for paying a very deserved tribute to the work that men in the Ministry of Works have done over many years.

Mr. Parker: Could the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of screening Larkhill Camp, which is an eyesore in relation to Stonehenge? Has his Ministry considered seeking the collaboration of the War Office in, for example, planting a belt of trees?

Mr. Birch: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I will look into it and write to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to make further provision for the maintenance and excavation of ancient monuments in South-Western England, in particular at the Stone Circle at Avebury, at sites in the neighbourhood and at Stonehenge.

RAILWAY BRANCH LINES (CLOSURE)

1.40 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I beg to move,
That this House views with concern the closure of the Halifax, Bradford and Keighley railway line to local passenger traffic serving those towns and adjacent villages; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take such action as may be necessary to ensure, by the reinstatement of this service, an adequate public transport service.
The House will appreciate that the Halifax, Bradford and Keighley Railway concerns a number of constituencies and, also, more villages than at first would be the impression. The closure of the railway to local passenger traffic will affect a large number of villages. They are Clayton, Cullingworth, Denholme, Great

Horton, North Bridge, Holmfield, Ingrow, Wilsden, Ovenden, Queensbury, and Thornton.
This is an important question which has been going on for fully eighteen months and which has involved me in slightly more than 200 communications with various authorities and constituents. Some of them have been courteous blanks. I used to serve on the Staff under an officer who wrote letters to me which meant nothing. When I asked him why, he said, "It is my job to write courteous blanks." I have had a few, and I have also had a lot of information, and if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary thinks that in certain parts of my speech I am a little sticky, although I will try to be reasonable, he will appreciate that this matter has been tough going.
Of these stations I am mainly interested in Wilsden, Cullingworth and Harecroft, which is included in Wilsden. These villages, especially Harecroft, stand on very high ground, lovely in the summer, but hard hit in the winter, and the only communication which is now offered to that particular spot is two buses in the morning and two in the evening. That is shamefully inadequate. In any case, these moorland roads are the first to be snowed up, and it is worth mentioning that in the winter of 1947, which of course was a difficult one, Harecroft was cut off for nearly eight weeks. Many who live there and at Wilsden work elsewhere, but they were able to get to work in the neighbouring towns, because of the railway service. In present circumstances, under conditions such as I have described, they would have no facilities at all for travelling.
What is sometimes overlooked in these cases is that a railway has cuttings and tunnels to enable it to overcome its difficulties, while a road winds, following the contours of the land; I think that a colleague of mine on the other side of the House will be able to give some information on that point. Some bridges are completely unsuitable. If they are not entirely unsuitable for bus traffic almost all the time, they certainly are in the winter. I hope that I shall not be thought too rude if I say that it would do the B.T.C. good if some of its specialists had to stand in a bus queue on top of Harecroft on a nasty day.
My colleagues in this matter, who belong to all parties, like myself recognise that this is not the sort of matter which should be brought to Parliament in the first instance. It should first be energetically and strongly pursued through other channels. I owe it to the House to give a brief account of the history of the case. My first official approach to the B.T.C. followed representations in June, 1954, when the closure of this line to passenger traffic was then only a proposal. More than a month later I got a reply saying that nothing could be said to me, because the matter was before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Yorkshire.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: The same old story.

Mr. Hirst: On 9th August I wrote another letter, and after a lot of jerking for no less than three months I got a reply on 8th December to say that the Committee supported the B.T.C. At this stage, especially following the debate of last Friday which had some reference to this topic. I must make some complaint about the machinery of the consultative committees.
There was no effective publicity in this case, and very short notice was given to possible objectors. The result was that, apart from a few official bodies with large staffs to help, there was no opportunity for an organised and fully informed case to be made by local objectors to counter the cut-and-dried case of the B.T.C. That is something in which the House should interest itself, whatever hon. Members may think about nationalisation—and it is no part of my case to argue that matter.
The machinery was set up, and the House was reasonably satisfied that there was a safeguard in that machinery for interested individuals. This is not the only case, but I should be out of order to discuss others, like electricity, where the machinery sometimes fails. It is difficult for people without a great deal of experience in this sort of matter to present cases to these bodies to counter the set-up of consultative committees supplied with a secretariat from the powers that be. It is a highly technical matter. I do not want to go too far in my remarks, but I am afraid that there are occasions when the committees act as a whitewashing body for the authority concerned.
I must say, in passing, that I am shocked that in speaking of branch railways my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that the Central Consultative Committee intended to stop the use of counsel. If I am wrong, I hope that he will correct me, but I assume from what he said that objectors will not in future be allowed to be represented by counsel. That ought not to happen and it is a little highhanded. If I am wrong, I shall be delighted to know it.
To return to the main theme; about 8th December, Sir Brian Robertson of the B.T.C. wrote to me to say that he agreed with the decision taken by the Consultative Committee, providing that there was a new and improved bus service. He included details of the alternative service, and my constituents were supposed to swallow the proposal for this new and improved service with glee. That was obviously impossible.
As in some measure the Parliamentary Secretary's ease will rest upon the alternatives which have been provided, and which are supposed to justify the closure without upsetting local residents, I must refer to the alternative programme. I shall give only one or two instances, because I do not want to weary the House. From Wilsden to Keighley is a very short distance. There was previously a rail service for workers at 7 a.m., getting to Keighley at 7.13 a.m. There is now a bus—weather and bridges permitting—at 6.30 a.m. arriving at 7.15. That is 47 minutes, or three and a half times as long as the railway took.
From Wilsden to Denholme is just around the corner. There was a rail service at 7.18 a.m. which arrived at 7,21 a.m.—the enormous time of three minutes. The bus starts at 6.30 a.m., arriving at 6.50 for people who want to get to work at 7.30, and so they have to hang about for 40 minutes. That is seven times as long. They have to get up considerably earlier in the morning, which is no fun and games on these dark mornings. They have to hang around until the works gates are open, and yet this is the new and improved bus service.
Returning to my village from Keighley in the afternoon, there was a train at 4.18 p.m. which arrived at 4.34, that is to say, it took 16 minutes. There is now


a bus at 3.50, which is just too soon for the school children—there is one substantially later, which means that the children have to hang about for 1¼ hours—and it takes 40 minutes, which is very much longer.
From Thornton to Wilsden the actual time taken by the alternative service, with only two buses available, is six and a quarter times as long as it was by train. I could quote many instances much worse than that, but I want to be fair in my analysis. In fact, there is one to Denholme which takes fifteen times as long.
Nobody can seriously argue that this is an improved bus service, though I suppose it is true to say that it is new. Needless to say, in the light of this and of the representations made to me, I naturally wrote again to Sir Brian on 21st December explaining the position and asking for a complete reconsideration of the case. I am still asking for that today. The reply of the British Transport Commission—a reply always takes a month—dodged the issue of reconsideration completely. I never had an answer on that point at all by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, but a conference in Leeds was suggested.
This took place in March this year between certain village representatives, the representatives of the Hebble bus company and the railway representatives. I was given notice of the conference but by error—I do not think that it was intentional—only a few hours before it took place, and I was not present. Unhappily, my constituents draw different conclusions from that, but I want to be fair and to say that notice was short. In case my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might say that I did not trouble to go, I say that I did not get any notice except by telephone the night before.
That conference proved to be a whitewashing affair, and nothing more came of it. I therefore wrote again to the B.T.C. and, though up to then I had received courteous letters, on this occasion I received a very "snooty" reply asking me to reflect that justice had been done. In view of the arguments which I have put forward most seriously, I really feel that that was a classic piece of impertinence.

Mr. Hobson: On the point about short notice, which is important, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might care to know that I was not even informed.

Mr. Hirst: There was an unhappy slip. Obviously the time had come—and here I choose my words with immense moderation—the time had come with a vengeance to approach my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. This I did in March, when I drew a most courteous blank.
I had more consultations with the Transport Users' Consultative Committee but those did not do any good, and I wrote again to the B.T.C. and asked for a senior representative to attend a meeting of those concerned at Harecroft, which is in my constituency. I suggested that representatives should come from places in the valley and the hills. This was fixed, and the meeting was held on 21st May in a hall packed to suffocation. It happened to come after the announcement of the General Election and, though it had nothing to do with that, it was attended by no fewer than seven Parliamentary candidates, of whom four are now Members of this House. Of the latter, three were former Members—myself, the hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock)—and the other was the present hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan).
A few days before that meeting I wrote again to Sir Brian Robertson, because I knew what would happen even if nobody else did. I knew that there was certain to be a rumpus. I advised Sir Brian as to what the situation might well be. On the eve of the meeting, at great cost to myself, I sent Sir Brian a 78-word telegram of appeal in relation to the matter. You will know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that was a very costly business.
The meeting was long and the people were somewhat outspoken. I do not want to mince words. We talk straight in Yorkshire; I do, as a Yorkshireman. There was plenty of straight talk at the meeting. The representatives of the railways, had, to use a colloquialism, to "take some stick." However, the meeting showed remarkable restraint—and I pay tribute to it—in the resolution, the only resolution, passed. If I had been able to stay, it would have been much stronger, but it was restrained and asked for a


modest service over a trial period of three months, perhaps with diesel-engined trains.
That I forwarded to the B.T.C. and I am still awaiting acknowledgment of its receipt, but I have heard that it has been received. In July I appealed again to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, and this time I mentioned in detail the conditions of the weather and the inadequate bridges—in other words, the whole bag of tricks—so that they should know the circumstances which I felt should give the opportunity for reconsideration. I do not think that at any time the committee was in full possession of the facts, because prior opportunity to present the facts was never given.
The reply I received was that the matter of roads and bridges was one for the Traffic Commissioner. That is fair enough, but in due course this intrigued me tremendously because I heard that, after the approval of the new bus route, the Traffic Commissioner had been prevailed upon to inspect—I can only assume that that had not been done before—the roads and bridges, and as a result he said that had he known what the roads were like in the area he would not have granted the licence.
Now where are we? Who is to take responsibility? I know this area, and so do other hon. Members. Who is to take responsibility in the light of that?

Mr. Hobson: Disgraceful.

Mr. Hirst: It was only about this time, in July, that I realised that the closure applied only to local passenger traffic. I acknowledge that, looking back in the light of my knowledge now, the letters which I received refer only to local passenger traffic, but I did not assume that it was only that. I thought that this great economy move was to get rid of the whole line and thus make a substantial saving. I admit that at times this faced me with a problem. I do not want to be dishonest with the House. There are hon. Members present today who have heard me talking about economy.
But my shock, and the shock to the whole of the village, was colossal. None of us had appreciated that the line would continue to be fully maintained and fully signalled not only for goods traffic but also for passenger traffic though not local

passenger traffic. In the area no fewer than eight local transport users' committees had been formed in recent months, with a co-ordinating committee which happens to be presided over by one of my constituents in Harecroft, with another of my constituents as secretary. I pay tribute to Mr. Tetley the chairman, and Mrs. Brooks, the secretary, for the tremendous amount of work they have done.
In October, almost at my final gasp, I wrote to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and again I received a courteous reply. I never ever receive anything but courtesy from him, but of course it had to be a pretty well negative indication of the lack of power that the Minister has in the matter. My argument today includes the fact that powers ought to be sought to remedy precisely this sort of situation.
Whatever may have been intended when this House passed the nationalisation Acts, I do not think that the House was entirely wise in what it did. Of course, I have my own views about that, but I am being careful because I do not want to be party minded. Those Acts divorced the essential control of major matters of policy from the Minister and set up another type of machinery. I say definitely that my case includes that powers should be sought. As a result I tabled a Motion, supported by nine hon. Members from all three parties, and we all took part in the Ballot. Here we have the Motion.
I now come to the question of cost. It has been put to me that the cost, or rather, I suppose it is the saving, involved in this action is £40,000. I have heard higher figures. There is a good deal of conflict of evidence, apparently, by officials on this matter, and I should like to go into that at some other time. But we must get some of these figures into proportion. We can never secure a breakdown of them. When Members of Parliament are fighting for and looking after their constituents and find themselves with these problems to face I think it reasonable that they should have better information. These global sums cannot be broken down to suit the ordinary intelligence even of people like Members of Parliament.
I cannot break down these figures, bearing in mind the fact that it is only


local stations which are closed—some of them are still receiving stations for goods—and that the line is still fully maintained for passenger purposes. No one, least of all myself, would argue that the whole system should be put back to what it was before. It was not efficient or successful. The number of passengers was quite insufficient. But I argue that the old conditions should be replaced by something modern and more efficient. Nothing like so many trains as before would be necessary, and those that were provided should be of a modern type and character, less expensive to run. I suggest that it requires a little imagination, less "chair-borne" decisions from London and more human thought for the people living in these hill villages.
The position is rather farcical. Although dozens of excursion trains have been run over the line during the last six months, and goodness knows how many goods trains, there is no local passenger service on this fully maintained and signalled line. I have heard all the talk about, and read all the speeches on, the subject of diesels and gradients. On this line between Halifax and Keighley there is no gradient greater than that at Laisterdyke on the Bradford—Leeds line, where a diesel now runs. I do not want to mention individual railway executive officers by name, but I have letters telling me that diesels will not run on this line, and that they are not economic. The fact is, however, that from the point of view of gradients, these diesels could be run. There are cases where a loss has been turned into a profit by this method.
The fact that there is now a large and growing housing estate near the line at Ovenden and Holmfield seems to have been overlooked by someone. There is a R.A.O.C. camp at Ovenden, where the people feel sore about this, because they have to travel for about twice the length of time and at 2⅓ times the cost by reason of the closure. We do not feel that there is a case for putting back the old steam trains but we think that there should be some method of overcoming the difficulty by some form of diesel traction.
I have read the speech made by the Minister last Friday, and noted the difficulty about rail cars and light diesels and so on. But in the interval I have obtained some information which does not

indicate to me that these engines are so expensive as was stated, or that they need to be, provided that they are used properly. It may be that at the moment a railcar costs £22,000 as against the cost of £26,000 of a light diesel. I am not disputing the figures, but I am disputing that there is a true comparison. Were there a proper policy for the use of some new form of light traction in this and other cases, the cost of a comparatively small railcar—a 40-seater—would be nearer £9,000 or £10,000, and I could put the Minister in touch with manufacturers who would be pleased to have an order for 200 or 300 of them.
I ask the Minister, who, I know, is considerate in these matters, to imagine the feelings of my constituents. Many of them live near the railway line, and when I visited them it was possible to see the trains flashing by—incidentally I "got it in the neck" on those occasions. But imagine the feelings of my constituents when they see the trains go flashing by, and realise that they cannot use the line because there is no local service. They find that very hard to swallow.
Last Friday the Minister said:
Apart from the traction, the high cost of maintenance and operation of railway lines is a very heavy burden. It can be reduced by withdrawing passenger trains…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 778.]
In this case it is not passenger trains which have been withdrawn, but the local passenger service for my constituents. The high cost of the maintenance and operation of the line which, last Friday, was the excuse for arguing against the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) is present in this situation, and that rather upsets me.
In spite of the understandable and large-scale opposition which there has been in my area and round about, like most Yorkshire folk, the people there are perfectly reasonable and prepared to listen to reason. But they have had little chance of doing so, and there was little to bite on in the correspondence which I have had with five different sections of authority. I do not expect the Minister to give a complete answer to all the points that I have raised in this somewhat detailed speech, but I hope he will be able to give to me and my friends in these villages an assurance that he will not slam the door on this matter. I


hope that he will promise to keep it under consideration and ensure that at least they have a fair deal.

2.8 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I beg to second the Motion.
This Motion seeks the reopening of the passenger traffic line between Keighley and Bradford via Denholme and the junction at Queensbury for Halifax, about which I shall have something to say in a moment. The Motion is the result of a co-operative effort by hon. Members on both sides of the House whose constituencies are involved. It should be understood by the Minister that the closing of branch lines in Yorkshire will lead to trouble—not only in York, but in Berkeley Square where he will hear more than the nightingales singing. In the heavy industrial areas of the West Riding of Yorkshire we consider that we are entitled to an efficient passenger and freight service.
When I say that there will be trouble, I am not speaking in an arrogant manner or in any threatening way. But to the whole of the economy of the country the West Riding of Yorkshire is of paramount importance. So far as the balance of payments is concerned, it is the only part of the country which has a surplus. It is the most highly productive part of the country, and we take a dim view of the attempt to close down this branch line.
The closing of the line will inconvenience people in my constituency who work in Bradford, particularly those who use stations like Clayton, which are on the periphery of Bradford, where there are large industrial establishments. They have now to use the alternative line to Bradford, which involves the added expenditure of bus fares from the centre of Bradford to its outskirts which are covered by the station of Clayton. Consequently, my constituents take a very poor view of this decision.
Further, of course, the closing of the line has resulted in delay to freight. If the line is closed, all traffic between Halifax and Keighley would have to go via Normanton or Skipton and Colne.

Mr. Ernest Davies: It is open for freight.

Mr. Hobson: At the moment it is open for freight, and if my hon. Friend would wait he will hear precisely what decisions the Transport Commission took.
The idea is to close the line. That was the statement made by Mr. Hill, in York. It means that people who have to travel between Keighley and Halifax—and freight also—instead of travelling a distance of nine and a half miles, will have to travel thirty miles. Consequently, there will unquestionably be delay and added cost.
There is also the very important point that this line provides an adequate connection between London and my constituency. I will give the Minister one example. A train which is very frequently used by business people travelling from Keighley to London is the 9.10 a.m. White Rose, a very fast train. It arrives in Bradford about 1.9 or 1.12 every week day, and at about 1.20 there was a connection from the next platform which enabled business people to arrive in my constituency by 2 p.m. But now they have to change stations, or, if they go by bus, they have a considerable walk uphill to the bus station.
Whatever may be the virtues or advantages of the City of Bradford, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) will agree that the bus station in Bradford is quite a distance from both railway stations. Therefore, direct connection between London and Keighley now involves the changing of stations. It is no good saying that people can use the old Midland line, because the average speed on that line is only about 35 miles an hour and on some trains it takes 51 hours to get from Leeds to London via the Midland route. It is no good advancing that argument.
I wish to reinforce the plea made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). In the winter, the roads between Denholme, which is at 900 feet, Keighley, Shipley and Bradford are frequently closed. It is utterly impossible for traffic of any kind to travel on the roads, because they are blocked with snow. The only form of communication for people in that area is the railway. The railway has very rarely been blocked by snow, and, when it is, it is very easy to clear it. In the highest part of the moorland territory, the trains go underground through


tunnels and are not subject to the vagaries of the weather.
Last winter, some schoolchildren in my constituency had to walk about three miles across snowfields to get to the nearest place where the buses could come. These villages on the Yorkshire moors are very frequently isolated, and, therefore, I think that my constituents are entitled to particular consideration.
Does not the Minister think that these people are entitled to transport in order to get to work and get the supplies to the shops? This is a real problem in Yorkshire. We are not dealing here with the flatlands of Middlesex, but with very high country. The alternative of running a bus service has been put forward. Let us examine that very carefully. First of all, before any bus company would agree to put on an additional service to cover these villages, it wanted a subsidy of £3,000.

Mr. David Jones: Will my hon. Friend explain why it wanted a subsidy of £3,000?

Mr. Hobson: Because it would not have paid the bus companies to run such a service. It would not have been an economic proposition. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point.

Mr. Ernest Davies: What bus company was it?

Mr. Hobson: It is a fact that for a good many months of the year it would be absolutely impossible for buses to use the route, even if a service were established. The gradients and the bridges are not meant for this form of traffic at all. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that I have here a picture from one of the Yorkshire papers of no fewer than four lorries which have overturned since the closing of the railway near Wilsden owing to the steep gradients and sharp curves that exist on the roads.
Reference was made to chairborne people in London, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should visit this area and travel on a single-decker bus between Keighley, via Denholme and Wilsden, to the 'City of Bradford. I can assure him that if he does that, by the time that he gets to the end of the journey he will want something more than a double brandy. He will certainly not want an aperient. As has been shown by the hon. Member for Shipley, it is

absolutely impossible to have a bus service adequate to the needs of the district with the roads as they are.
Reference has also already been made to the housing estates which exist at Ovenden and Holmefield. The people living on those estates now have to take two buses at double the fare in order to get to Bradford because the railway has been closed to passenger traffic. Does the Minister think that fair, just or equitable? It seems to me to be an entirely wrong attitude to be taken up by whoever is responsible for closing the line. Of course, other housing estates are being developed, and there will be more and more people who will have to get to work in Bradford and Keighley. They are surely entitled to have adequate transport facilities.
As stated by the hon. Member for Shipley, at a meeting on 15th July, Mr. Hill, who, I understand, is from the Eastern Region Headquarters, at York, made the categorical statement that no trains would run over that track. Subsequently, there was correspondence between myself, my constituents and the British Transport Commission as a result of which that statement was qualified, and today there is a certain amount of freight traffic on the line.
During the summer months numerous excursions were run over this line. I assume that that was because of the great density of traffic on the alternative routes, or probably because it was a shorter distance. I have here the waybills and advertisements for excursions to Blackpool, Southport and Morecambe actually run over that line.
What is more important—and this really is astonishing—is that at the end of June or in early July a new track was laid down between Great Horton and Queensbury. Furthermore, it was not laid during the week; it was laid on a Sunday. The gangers therefore had to be recruited from elsewhere, and it was only appropriate that the overtime rate had to be paid. This either shows complete and utter incompetence or a lack of co-ordination between the people running the Eastern Region—or it is prima facie evidence that the line will be kept in existence. The Minister cannot have it both ways.
If the line is to be kept in existence for freight—and I suppose that that is


what we shall be told—and excursion trains are to be run "as and when required," in the beautifully generalised phrase that is used, why cannot a few trains be run in the early morning and late at night, besides one at noon, when the workers are going to and leaving their work, in order to bring them from Bradford, Denholme and Keighley? Either the railway should be completely shut down, or passenger traffic should be allowed upon it.
We shall probably be told that the reason why freight is still run over it—in spite of Mr. Hill's statement of 15th July—is, as the hon. Member for Shipley stated, that the gradients are not safe for heavy road traffic. It seems to me that the Minister ought to look again at this matter. I renew my invitation to him to have a ride in this area himself.
I now want to deal with the question in general terms. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the transport of passengers and freight is a public service. We cannot expect every form of bus service or every railway line to pay if we did, half the bus services in the country would be shut down. Indeed, the London Underground railway would be shut down, because the buses help to pay for it.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No.

Mr. Hobson: My hon. Friend will be able to make his own speech later, instead of muttering while I am speaking.
There are certain bus services in London which do not pay but which are essential for the travelling public. There should be a broad vision and a broad conception about these branch lines, and if they are carrying out a public service they should not automatically be shut down.
I think I shall be within the rules of order if I say that we must look at the 1947 Act again. My view is that the House should decide whether or not a branch line should close. The decision should not be left to an official in York, or in one of the various control points of British Railways, and it should not be necessary to go through the paraphernalia of appearing before a transport users' consultative committee, of whose proceedings some of the people affected are notified and others not. I cannot see

any objection to bringing in regulations, and it would then be competent for any hon. Member or group of Members to pray for the annulment of the appropriate regulation. I urge the Minister to think upon those lines.

Mr. D. Jones: In other words, a pressure group.

Mr. Hobson: Not necessarily. Whatever may be one's constituency—whether it be highly industrialised or in a rural or semi-rural area—the people living in it are entitled to adequate transport. That is my point. Those who argue that these branch lines should be automatically closed are always quick to suggest that bus services should be provided. But bus services cannot be provided just like that. I do not know whether the Minister has power to direct nationalised or private bus services to run services for the benefit for the people of a certain area, but I very much doubt it.
Leaving aside all considerations of weather, locality, and the topography of the area concerned, the people living there are being very unfairly singled out and dealt with. I hope that the Minister will say that the door is not closed and that he is prepared to consider the stretch of railway between Keighley and Bradford, which, I understand, has been in existence since about 1879. It is absolutely essential for the people in my constituency who are living 900 feet above sea level. In winter, it is necessary for the schoolchildren and those who have to work in Bradford—especially in the east of that city.
I hope that we shall not have a merely formal reply, but that the Minister will say he is prepared to reconsider the matter and see that the constituents of Keighley. Shipley, Halifax, and Bradford have an adequate service over that railway line.

2.26 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I beg to move, after the first "of" to insert:
branch railway lines and in particular of.
Perhaps it would be convenient for the House if the other Amendments in my name, to leave out "railway line" and insert:
and Arbroath/Forfar railway lines


and to leave out "this service" and insert "these services," were discussed at the same time.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) for wording his Motion in such a way that I was able to put down these Amendments, to make it possible to bring to the notice of the public and the Government the feeling of frustration and injustice felt by local authorities and people in my part of Scotland about the closing of a certain branch line. This branch line consists of a 14-mile stretch between Arbroath and Forfar, in the County of Angus, seven miles of which is main line in any case. It is really not an ordinary branch line but, rather, a link between two main lines—one being the King's Cross to Aberdeen line, up the east coast, and the other the Euston to Perth and Aberdeen line, up the west coast.
The best thing I can do is to tell the story of the closing of this line. In March, notification was received by the local authorities concerned that the line would be closed. There was an immediate reaction not only from the people in the district, but from all the local authorities concerned. The Angus County Council, and the Town Councils of Arbroath and Forfar, formed a joint body to make the necessary protest. They did this to the local transport users' consultative committee. Eventually, on 10th June, they were heard. When they went into the room they were faced, among other people, by a representative of British Railways and a representative of S.M.T.—the nationalised Scottish bus services—who were members of the committee. They immediately felt that those two people were bound to be prejudiced against them and their case, and they came away completely unsuccessful and dissatisfied with the hearing they had received.
I will read one sentence from the letter which the Town Clerk of Arbroath sent to me:
We have in mind that the worse feature of this whole affair …"—
that is, the appearance before the consultative committee—
is the inadequate machinery. The Transport Users' Consultative Committee are at once a toothless body who have no form of procedure and their whole actions are entirely

informal. The British Railways and the Scottish Bus Group are represented on the Committee and the extensive knowledge of these gentlemen on transport matters sways the opinion of the whole body.
That may or may not be right, but that is the feeling that they came away with.
Then they appealed to the area board, and Sir Ian Bolton and Cameron of Lochiel saw them on the 4th October. They got no change out of the board, because they were told that the objectors had produced no new fact, and, finally, they were told that if the authority desired to pursue the matter further it would have to be through either the transport tribunal or direct to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. They chose the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and asked me to arrange a deputation to be received here by the Minister.
I am not blaming the Minister in the least that he refused. He said that, in view of the terms of the 1947 Act, he could not say "Yes" or "No" to the deputation when it came, because he had no responsibility in the circumstances, in accordance with the terms of the Act. Therefore, it would be a waste of time for these busy gentlemen, prominent local people, to come all the way from Scotland to see him. On 5th December, the line was closed to passenger traffic.
What is the effect? The radiographer from Arbroath has to go to Forfar every day to do some of the work for the Angus Hospital Board. She used to go by train at the cost of a few shillings. Now she has to go by taxi, costing £3 a day to the Angus Hospital Board. The passengers—and I will deal with the numbers later—have to go by bus, and the bus takes 55 minutes by a tedious route, instead of the train's 30 minutes. The fisher-women of Arbroath used to carry their creels to the railway, and from there go round the countryside, selling their freshly caught fish from their creels. They are now finding great difficulty in getting alternative routes so that they can serve their customers.
Along the old railway route there is an inefficient service of buses, and no sufficient service of buses has yet been established along that route. The bus route, of course, goes a different way. Lastly, the train connection to Glasgow is almost impossible at the present time. When one wants now to go from Arbroath to Glasgow one has to go via


Dundee, where there are two stations. One is underground and the other is above ground, about 200 yards away. There is five minutes between the arrival of one train, if it is punctual, and the departure of the next train—which will not wait. If, therefore, the train is not punctual, one misses the connection altogether, and even if it is punctual, one has to be athletic to get up the stairs, along the street and into the other station to catch the train. The reverse also applies. These are a few of the facts, probably by no means all, of the closing of this line.
I do not want to go into great detail of the broader picture of this story. It seems to me that one of the first things which the Government really must look at is the inadequate procedure of the transport users' consultative committee. When the local authority's delegation went to Edinburgh they were told by the railway authorities present at the inquiry that this line was losing £17,000 a year. They had no chance of criticising They were never given a chance to break down that figure into detail, and, quite frankly, they do not believe and I do not believe that that figure could be saved by the closing of this line only to passenger service.
After all, the maintenance must remain. Seven miles of the line is main line, and the rest will still be used for goods. Another line, running through my estate, was closed three or four years ago, and the same number of gangers are on that line today, although it has only one goods train a day each way, as it had when it was open to passenger service. That is a fact. I do not believe that there can be very much saving from the maintenance of the line, from the signaling—

Mr. Thomas Steele: How many maintenance men are there?

Captain Duncan: Three—the same number are still there. If the hon. Gentleman wants confirmation of that he can go to the Alyth junction station and find out. There will be no saving in signals, no saving in the upkeep of the level crossings or of the wages of the watchmen to guard the gates, but, of course, there will be a saving in coal because without the passenger train coal burning will be saved.
This leads me to the next point, that there should be an alternative method of propulsion. I do not mind whether it is diesel, electric battery cars, or what it is. I have submitted to the Minister—and I think that he has my submission in his hands—the facts which have been supplied by an eminent railway engineer, not in the service of British Railways, saying that diesel rail cars can be operated at between 26 and 33 per cent. of the cost of an equivalent steam train. Those costs included everything—maintenance, operating costs, interest on capital. If my hon. Friend or the Transport Commission can dispute those figures, let them do so.
One reason why we are so dissatisfied is that we can never get the Transport Commission to explain the figures of loss that it gives or why it does not experiment more freely with diesel rail-cars. It says that the cars cost too much to make. If so, let us have all these facts out at a proper inquiry and let us all know them, because it is only by knowledge that we shall make progress.
Meanwhile, Arbroath, Forfar and the surrounding districts are cut off from the west of Scotland. This is very important, not only for business travellers but for the holiday traffic. Arbroath has about 20,000 inhabitants, but on the Saturday of Glasgow holiday week, about 10,000 people, an extra 50 per cent., are added to the population of Arbroath, and they come not only by road but by holiday trains from the west.

Mr. D. Jones: What happens on the other fifty-one weeks?

Captain Duncan: I can give the hon. Gentleman a figure which will convey some idea of the development of Arbroath as a holiday resort. It is estimated that during the last holiday season this year, visitors from all sorts of places, including visitors from America, brought £500,000 to this small town of 20,000 inhabitants. The town has spent an enormous amount of money on successfully developing its holiday attractions. It fears that it will lose a large part of the effect of this expenditure, because it will be cut off from the west of Scotland.
My first request to my hon. Friend, apart from the terms of the Motion which asks for this line to be reopened, is that at least an inquiry should be held


to see whether we can reopen it in the holiday months for passenger trains. That would put Arbroath back on the map in relation to the west of Scotland.
My second request is that we should have from the Minister and the Transport Commission complete reconsideration of the machinery, methods and procedure of the transport users' consultative committee. I very much regret my hon. Friend's statement last Friday that the committee proposed to dispense with counsel at inquiries. It is not fair for provosts, town clerks, farmers and local authority people to have to argue on transport matters with experts from the consultative committee which is composed partly of experts in transport.
My third point is that the Transport Commission should cease its completely negative attitude on the closing of branch lines and should give consideration, which, I believe, has not been given, to using diesel or battery rail-cars. We should take advantage of the Light Railways Act so as to get rid of some of the extra expense. The Transport Commission has bought diesel engines, but they are all between 600 and 2,000 horsepower. I have no objection to that. No doubt the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), who is an old railwayman, will agree that many railwaymen have a prejudice against diesel locomotives.

Mr. D. Jones: Not at all.

Captain Duncan: My local railway people overcame that prejudice long ago. Stationmasters, porters and signalmen in my area are looking for this sort of modern outlook on transport. It is the people at the head who seem to be "sticky." I beg my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in the hope of reopening these lines, if not for the holiday traffic at any rate in the future, to consider how we can get these lines economically and efficiently run, and can use light rail-cars or battery rail-cars for rural transport.
I do not want to add anything to what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) said about the needs of the countryside. My countryside is prosperous. Farmers have their own cars. The people I am speaking for are not the farmers or the farm workers, who

are well enough off now to get about on motor cycles and even in motor cars in some cases. I speak for the farm workers' wives. They have to do the shopping. Cutting off rural transport hits the person who is the key to rural prosperity, the farm worker's wife. She will not stay in the country unless she can get to the shops.

Mr. Jones: Quite right.

Captain Duncan: We must, therefore, do all we can to get rural transport going. If we cannot, it will be a bad day for Scotland.

2.46 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am concerned about the policy of British Railways in closing so many branch lines. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has brought forward very well the arguments against closing of branch lines in rural constituencies. I can understand the case for closing lines on grounds of economy, though I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) when he said that he was not able to see clearly the breakdown of the figures presented by British Railways. It is difficult when we are asked for economy in the running of branch lines, when we see wastage in other sectors, particularly at level crossings. There is a man on duty and old-fashioned methods are used, leading to waste of money.

Mr. D. Jones: What does the hon. Gentleman suggest should be substituted for a crossing keeper at level crossings to maintain the same degree of safety?

Mr. Ridsdale: I am grateful for that intervention. I would suggest traffic lights, as are used on roads, or a method of putting the road under the railway. The capital expenditure would be worth while in the end.

Mr. Jones: Get some money out of the Minister of Transport to do it.

Mr. Ridsdale: Are we looking ahead far enough? I am certain that branch lines would come into their own with a wider use of diesel cars. In my constituency there was a proposal to close the branch line from Brightlingsea to Colchester, but I am glad that British Railways were good enough to reopen


that branch line. The fear I always have is that the time may come again when British Railways say that the line is not being run economically.
I sympathise very much with the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson). I know that figures have been given showing why these branch lines are not paying under present conditions, but I do plead most sincerely with the Minister to give very close consideration to the use of diesel cars on these branch lines and, before such lines are closed, to have a trial period when these cars can be used.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

2.51 p.m.

Mr. George Craddock: As I am interested in the Bradford—Halifax branch line, and in particular with Bradford and Queensbury, I wish to revert to the terms of the Motion proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). The people on the southern part of the branch line have been saddened by the fact that it has been closed in what they think to be a most unfortunate manner. I want to stress four points. They are: the needs of this vast population; the reason for the closing down of the line as given by the Commission; the present use being made of it; and alternative forms of travel.
This branch line has existed now for more than eighty years, and has served primarily Bradford, Keighley and Halifax, as well as certain small villages. It is very important to note that those three places together have a population of more than 450,000, and I cannot understand why the Commission has not done more to make known the facilities provided and to persuade the travelling public to use them. It has been said that this line has been used less and less in recent years, but when one considers that within a very short distance of each other there are three large and growing industrial towns, it seems strange that the Commission has had to take this step.
We have been told that to close the line means a saving of £48,000 a year, but it would appear that there was no real intention to close it. It has remained open for some traffic, and this summer it

has been most noticeable to people living adjacent to the line that through excursion trains have been running along it. In addition, freight is carried regularly. Can the Minister tell me when a line is closed? I certainly understood that to close a line meant that rolling stock would no longer pass along it. That is not the case here. All that has happened is that local trains only have ceased to run. It is being used as before for through traffic and for the carriage of freight.
I am particularly interested in the junction at Queensbury, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson). For many days and weekends now work has proceeded on the laying of a new track. It is surprising that the Commission should take this line out of service and then, at a most important junction which serves the branch line, should lay—and are still laying—a new track. The local people cannot understand why it is that though to them the line is closed, from their kitchen windows they can see passenger trains passing by.
These matters are not dealt with sufficiently deeply by the appropriate body, and I think that it is time there was more effective machinery for the purpose. After all, we have a system of railways not merely for the purpose of making every mile of track pay its way but to aid the economic, social and industrial life of the community. If we proposed to do everything on the basis of making every small part pay we should never do anything at all and never make the slightest progress.
We have been informed that there are suitable alternative forms of travel, but, from my own experience, I can tell the Minister that this is not the case. This is an extremely hilly district—very rough terrain—and in winter there is a gigantic risk to life and limb if all traffic is to be forced on to the roads. The Commission has been extremely fortunate that, since the line was closed, we have so far had a comparatively mild winter. Had we had a really severe one we might have had some very serious accidents on the road contiguous to this branch line.
Nor can we understand the suggestion that a compensatory sum of £3,000 should be allowed to those who are to run the road services which will take the place of the closed-down branch line. It is


amazing. This is a matter which should be considered by the Commission and by the consultative committees, because the railways exist to render a national service, to provide an efficient passenger and goods service for the whole country. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) that in the more distant parts of the country, where the going is very much harder, there is a likelihood of a growing tendency not to use and finally to close branch lines, although in such districts there may be a possibility of economic and social developments, particularly in those in Scotland.
It seems to me entirely wrong policy and quite preposterous to close the Halifax—Keighley—Bradford line for a saving of £48,000 by the Commission, having regard to the service which could be given if the Commission did what it could to make the travelling public more conscious of rail travel. I must protest at the way in which the meeting of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee was called in March this year. Bradford City Council considered the closing of this line and wrote to the city's Members of Parliament to ask them to take steps to get the line reopened. I think that the Members of Parliament for the City of Bradford should have been notified of that meeting so that we could have attended and given our opinion.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will give very serious consideration to the matter, and that he will prompt the people concerned to do something about it, so that we can have this branch line reopened. I am sure it would be to the advantage of the country, and in particular to the many hundreds of thousands of people who could be served by that branch line.

3.1 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I have listened with a good deal of interest to this debate, but I think we have to consider the national as well as local interest. We in Parliament asked the British Transport Commission to pay its way taking one year with another. Since we have done that, it is, I think, very unfair to the Commission that we should oppose it when it seeks to make economies, when it proposes to save £40,000 or £17,000 a year. Obviously, such proposals ought to be considered

extremely carefully when the nation as a whole is asking that economies should be made in national expenditure and in the expenditure of the nationalised corporations.

Captain Duncan: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says, but our point is that if the Transport Commission would only use modern propulsion the railways could be made to pay.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If my hon. and gallant Friend will bear with me I shall come to that matter in a minute.
It may be, of course, that some of the branch lines will never pay, however operated. It may be that they will never pay as long as the engines are operated by steam. I should like to consider for a minute or two whether there are possible ways of making the lines pay. Of course, if they can never pay the passengers must go by road, and use what is, after all, a fine network of bus services throughout the country. After all, buses go nearer to people's homes and places of business than do railway trains.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: But they are often not there.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I ask myself whether it is possible to, so to speak, degrade these branch lines to tramways and thus cut out signals, cut out level crossings, cut out porters and other people at the stations, and so on. I ask myself whether they could be conducted as tramways by the use of light diesel buses on rails. From my knowledge of industry I think that to put a diesel bus on a railway line costs between £7,000 and £8,000, not a very heavy capital expenditure. It could be run by one driver and possibly a conductor to collect the fares, which should certainly be much cheaper than keeping going a signalling system, level crossings, and the like.
How much safer these lines are than the roads. I had the advantage the other day of travelling by diesel train on a main line. Sitting near the front one had a complete feeling of safety. There were no pedestrians crossing the line, no other traffic and no overtaking. It is easy even to drive a diesel train. How much easier it is to drive a diesel bus on railway lines at about 30 m.p.h. I have no doubt that the passengers would prefer to go by diesel bus rather than by the old-fashioned steam railway train.
In the West Riding, traffic has increased by 40 per cent. since diesel operation began and, of course, diesel operation is very much cheaper than steam operation. A diesel train costs about 13d per mile to operate whereas a steam train costs about 37d, per mile. Therefore, great economies can be made.
Summing up the general observations, fortunately without having a branch line in my own constituency to worry about, I would say, first, that we cannot ask the B.T.C. to operate an unremunerative line for ever. Secondly, if there is no traffic offering, the Commission must close the line and we must agree. We cannot keep it going for sentimental reasons. We cannot keep a line open for the reason which I understand a Westmorland lady pleaded—because there was a harmonium in the railway station. It may be that if we entirely de-graded these lines into tramway operation they would attract traffic and could be made economical. The cost of operation would be very much less.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who has brought some reality into the debate, but before I deal with his proposals I should like to say something about the history of this matter. I am sure that we are all concerned at the fact that a debate of this kind should be necessary. We are all concerned at the fact that branch lines are being closed. No one is more concerned than I am. I believe hon. Members know that I am the only stationmaster in the House. I have served for 25 years on the railways, and I appreciate that my fellow railwaymen look very sadly and regretfully on the closing of these lines.
One of the stations at which I served as stationmaster has now been closed. Whether it was the result of my inability to secure traffic or not, I do not know. Another one has unfortunately been degraded because of the loss of traffic, and the station at which I started work as a boy on a branch line is now on the list for closing. I speak, therefore, with some feeling on this matter, but, irrespective of that, I have to face the realities of the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) said that Parlia-

ment ought to have more control of these matters, and that regulations should be brought before us to deal with the closing of branch lines. I say to him that the administration of railways in the past has been bedevilled because of Parliamentary interference, and the railways would have been in a better position to face modern competition and needs had they not been hamstrung by the legislation passed by the House.
My hon. Friend said that the branch line to which he referred was built in 1879. That is one of our problems, because when these branch and main lines were built many landlords and other people raised objections to where the line should be, and one of our difficulties today is that no cognisance was then taken of serving the community, so that the stations were built away from the villages. So we are suffering from that fact as well.
The main problem which the House must face is the new conception of transport and the habits of people. No one will walk to a railway station today if he can get a bus at his door. Many of the branch lines I know, which can only put on a service for morning, midday or evening travel, must compete with bus services operating at fifteen minute intervals from seven o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night.

Mr. Ernest Davies: And they are often cheaper.

Mr. Steele: Yes.
I have seen this competition. During the campaign for a square deal for the railways I tried to help my employers to bring home to the public what was happening. As well as the bus traffic we must bear in mind the number of people who have cars today, because they are the ones who previously, in the main, used the railways more. Their change of transport resulted in heavy loss of traffic for the railways.
The hon. Member for Twickenham put forward a proposal which he genuinely felt might help the maintenance of branch lines, and it linked up with the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). This is nothing new. Before the war the railway companies experimented with what was called the Camel Coach. That was a small coach


seating about sixty passengers which could run backwards and forwards. Despite that, and despite the fact that it gave a better service, the public did not use it because buses were more convenient.
Now I will give some information to the House which I am certain will amaze hon. Members. Not only do we have this problem on branch lines where the stations are inconvenient but we have it also where stations are conveniently sited in the centre of a village and provide a good service. I know one station where the people go to the entrance where the buses stop, and they prefer to pay 1s. 6d. for a return trip in a bus rather than go by train for 6d. return.

Mr. Hobson: My hon. Friend is quoting certain examples which are known to him. I should like to tell him this absolute fact. As a result of dieselisation between Leeds and Bradford and Leeds and Harrogate and Knaresborough traffic has been more than trebled. The British Transport Commission holds this to be a successful new venture, and I suggest that it could reasonably be adopted on other lines.

Mr. Steele: I agree, provided the essential traffic is there. That is the point. However, with many of these branch lines the traffic is not there to begin with. In the case I mention, the traffic existed to sonic extent but the people preferred to travel by bus. This comes about through the changing habits of the people, and the Commission must have cognisance of that fact, just as the bus services must.

Mr. Hirst: The hon. Member is arguing largely about cases where there are adequate alternative bus services. I am sure he will appreciate that the force of the Motion is directed towards cases where no such alternative exists, which is an important part of our quarrel.

Mr. Steele: The hon. Gentleman has just given me an introduction to the next point that I wanted to make.
The argument has been that the branch lines should be maintained despite the loss which the Commission says will be involved. In the course of the arguments which have been advanced, we have learnt that the bus companies, before they would be prepared to operate an alter-

native service, required a guarantee of £3,000. If the bus services want such a guarantee, surely that must be evidence that potential traffic does not exist. That answers the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Hirst: That does not answer the case. My hon. Friends and I have explained at great length that the roads in our neighbourhood are completely unsuitable for that sort of transport. The hon. Member speaks from great experience, and his case is tremendously sound in general, but there are certain peculiarities about our area and it is not suitable for bus transport, no matter what subsidy may be given.

Mr. Steele: I have not visited that area, and I appreciate that the hon. Member knows the district better than I do. However, in some parts of my constituency and in some parts of the constituency which I had the honour to represent from 1945 to 1950 until the constituents thought otherwise, the gradients were very great indeed—such as on the road along Clydeside from Garrion Bridge to Kirkfieldbank, which is a winding area, and on the hills from there up to Lanark along Kirkfieldbank Braes—and one would have thought them almost impossible for a single decker bus, but double decker buses are, in fact, making that journey today.
The main argument that was advanced was that the railways should be kept open because of the danger of storms in the winter. Surely we cannot ask the British Transport Commission to keep open railways merely because of that. The main point which I want to make is that if it is necessary to give a subsidy of £3,000 to the bus companies for this purpose, surely it is wrong to argue that the Commission should keep open these lines and should operate them at a loss. Why should the industry bear the cost? Here I speak as a stationmaster on leave of absence. If my constituents reject me at the next Election, I shall go back to my job. When my trade union makes an application to the Commission for a pay increase, it will be emphatically told that the Commission has no money with which to grant it.
From the point of view of my association it cannot be argued that branch lines should be kept open—those which will cost the British Transport Commission


money—at the expense of the conditions of service of railway employees.

Mr. Hobson: Alter the Act.

Mr. Steele: My hon. Friend says "Alter the Act." It is scarcely likely that the present Government will do that.
The public is entitled to a good service, the best service that we can give. If the nation says so, then the Government must face the responsibility, and if branch lines must be kept open for strategic purposes, or for serving any community, the cost should fall, not upon the Commission, but upon the Government. That is our argument.
Finally, I am convinced that the Commission is not prepared to close down these branch lines without consideration. It is as anxious as we are to make them pay. It is only after very careful consideration that branch lines are closed.
I hope and trust that we shall not criticise the consultative committees in this way, because they are composed of public spirited people who are doing a good job and who are anxious to serve the community and who are prepared to go to some expense. There should not be levelled at them the criticism which has been voiced this afternoon.

3.24 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): It is one of the charms of the House of Commons that while at one moment it is dealing with the broadest matters of national and international policy, it is still both the privilege and duty of hon. Members to raise matters which affect the convenience and comfort of their constituents. I therefore make no complaint that hon. Members have availed themselves of the good fortune of the Ballot to raise these matters today.
It usually happens on such occasions, however, that the putting forward of the point of view of a particular constituency or locality provokes some hon. Members into expressing a broader and more national point of view. I am glad that the debate did not conclude without the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), both of which have gone a long way to put

the problem before us into its proper perspective.
The question as to what services are run and what branch lines are kept open is a matter for the British Transport Commission. This is a matter of day-to-day administration which has been entrusted to them, and not to the Minister of Transport, under the Act of 1947. To protect the travelling public against any danger that the Commission might take decisions of this kind without due regard to the public interest, Parliament set up the transport users' consultative committees to look after the interests of the travelling public.
It is provided by Section 6 (8) of the Act of 1947, as amended by Section 29 (2) of the Act of 1953, that where the Central Transport Consultative Committee makes a recommendation to the Minister about a proposal of the Commission the Minister may intervene and give a direction to the Commission. In both instances which have been mentioned this afternoon the appropriate transport users' consultative committees have approved the Commission's proposals. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, told the hon. Members who raised these matters today that he has no locus standi to intervene at all.
It is because I believe that the conclusions of the transport users' consultative committees can be abundantly justified that I am glad that my hon. Friends have raised these matters, because it gives me an opportunity to explain why the decisions were taken by the Commission and why they were approved by the committees.
In the case of the Halifax—Bradford—Keighley branch line, these three important industrial towns are well supplied with transport, and even after this branch line has been closed they will still continue to be well served by main line railways. It is only this little branch line that we are discussing. It is of triangular formation with a mileage of 18¼ miles, and it has on it no fewer than 11 stations.
Some years ago the train service was cut to economise in coal. It was not thought at that time of coal shortage to be justifiable to keep all these trains running for the benefit of the small number of passengers whom they were carrying. Since then there have been only about seven trains in each direction


per day. On an average of these 14 trains, fewer than three passengers have joined and fewer than three passengers have alighted at each one of the 11 stations. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) quoted the case of Mr. Tetley. I understand that he was the only regular passenger on the 7.18 train for quite a substantial distance from Wilsden.
Of course it is true, as, indeed, I pointed out last week, that the Commission, by means of the use of diesels is anxious to encourage, to maintain and to develop services where, in the words of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West, there is the potential traffic. But, surely, the very fact that it is doing so in West Cumberland, for example, about which I gave figures last Friday—and again, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), even in the vicinity of this branch line—shows that it is fully alive to the advantages of diesel as compared with steam traction.
If it is not doing so on this branch line, it is because, taking into account all the circumstances and the facts which I have just been giving, it is obvious that however much diesels may be better and cheaper than steam locomotives there would still be no chance of making this branch line pay. The financial saving, estimated at £48,826 by the Transport Commission, arises entirely out of the economy created by the discontinuance of the passenger service. I mean by that a reduction in the number of stall which may be as high as 50. This includes stationmasters—no one would wish to economise the services of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West, but he recognised that stationmasters cannot he retained where there is no use for the station—clerks, guards, porters, and engine-men. The total cost of the service was £56,939 and the receipts were only £8,113.
My hon. Friend complained, and was supported by the hon. Member for Keighley, that only passenger services were discontinued, and asked why it was that, as he said, dozens of excursion trains had been run last summer. His eloquence led him into a slight hyperbole. There were not dozens, but 17 excursion trains. Five passenger trains were run in one direction during the holiday season, on Saturday, 23rd July, and five back

on the following Saturday. Those are the only trains of which I have a record.

Mr. Hobson: There were trains run on 12th September.

Mr. Hirst: Football "specials."

Mr. Molson: That may be, but tile answer is that now the passenger services have been withdraw, the maintenance of the lines will not be continued at passenger service level. The line will be allowed to deteriorate, and as soon as it is shown by inspection that it is no longer safe for passenger trains, excursions and holiday trains will be discontinued on that line.
The hon. Gentleman referred to certain new track being laid at Great Horton and Queensbury. I do not know why he should trouble to raise the matter again, because on 22nd August the Chairman of the Transport Commission wrote to him and explained that new rails were laid at Great Horton because it was necessary for freight working, and a small item of track maintenance was necessary at Queensbury Station to keep the line in working order for the time being. It may well be that before long the line will be closed to goods traffic, as the Queensbury and other tunnels are extremely difficult and expensive to maintain. That is under consideration, and, if decided on, the line will go out of use entirely, with a further saving of expenditure to the Commission.
This matter has been most carefully and conscientiously considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee of Yorkshire. I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West about the very valuable and conscientious work which is done voluntarily by the gentlemen and ladies who sit upon these consultative committees. They went into this matter very carefully to find out what alternative transport was likely to be available.
On 26th July, a sub-committee came to the conclusion that the alternative road transport would not be adequate. It accordingly asked the Commission to go further into the matter, and, as a result, fresh proposals were made which were examined by the sub-committee on 15th September, 1954. As a result, the subcommittee concluded that:
In the opinion of the sub-committee the alternative road facilities now proposed were satisfactory and met the objections which had


influenced them previously in recommending that one or two morning and evening trains should be maintained.",
and recommended that:
subject to the introduction of the alternative road passenger services set out in Appendix A. no opposition should be raised to the complete withdrawal of the passenger train service.
That was the conclusion of a subcommittee, and subsequently it was considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Yorkshire, which unanimously agreed with this recommendation on 30th November and said that no opposition would be raised to the complete withdrawal of the train service.
I listened with close attention to what my hon. Friend said about the experience which has been gained now that the rail service has been withdrawn. There is no constitutional way of reopening the matter or of referring it back to the T.U.C.C., but I will certainly give my hon. Friend an undertaking that I will write to the Chairman of the Transport Commission and draw to his attention the matters raised by him rid also by the hon. Member for Keighley.
I turn now to the case of the Forfar—Arbroath branch line, but I am bound to say that very much the same conditions seem to apply there. Neither Forfar nor Arbroath will be deprived of rail communication as a result of the closing of this branch line. Nor will Arbroath even be deprived of direct rail communication with the West of Scotland.
Out of respect to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan), and because I understand him to be critical of the procedure of the Scottish T.U.C.C., I have been at some pains to read the proceedings. I will read what was said by the advocate who was opposing the closing of the line. He said:
Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 people at least go daily from Arbroath to Forfar to work. They are going to be hit by this. There are a few, but not many, who possibly use the train from Forfar to Arbroath for their daily work… Then there are people who go to Arbroath from Forfar from time to time during the day on business. If I might give an example,…you have members of the Angus County Council who reside in Arbroath and wish to go to Forfar to attend the council meetings…Then day trippers from Forfar use it, and holiday traffic.

We really cannot keep open—at a cost of £17,000 to the Commission—a branch line which carries such a small number of travellers. As a matter of fact, Mr. Selfe, representing British Railways, was extremely frank and very generous. He corrected those figures, and showed that more people were using those 14 trains than Mr. Maxwell had supposed. He showed that 73 people made daily journeys over the branch line, of whom 39 were schoolchildren. In addition, business people were travelling daily, and he was able to give the numbers who joined the trains at each station. When the number of people habitually using a branch line is as small as that it really would be irresponsible on the part of a transport users' consultative committee not to support its closing.
I should now like to say something about the procedure of the consultative committees. I hesitate to say anything about the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee; I am sure it would be most unwise for an Englishman to intervene upon a subject of that kind. But I want to pay a tribute to Sir John Erskine, the Chairman, who, I believe, enjoys the general confidence of the travelling public in Scotland. I believe that the Scottish Committee, which is quite independent, shares the views of the Central Consultative Committee which, in its report for the year ended 31st December, 1953, said that it thought that it would be generally better for there to be a round table atmosphere and not to be too much formality, such as naturally arose when an advocate made his opening speech and sought to cross-examine.
It then consulted the regional committees, and came to four conclusions on this subject. I shall read the one which is most germane to this point:
That for the present, when Counsel or solicitors are instructed to appear on behalf of objectors, the Chairman of the Committee must decide what licence should be given to them, bearing in mind that the proceedings should be kept as informal as possible.
I believe that that is a wise recommendation, and I am sure that the chairmen of the committees will exercise their discretion in a responsible manner.
I have now dealt with the two particular cases which were raised, but much broader issues have emerged from other speeches, and the Motion before the


House asks the Government to take measures to make themselves responsible for dealing with the closing of branch lines. I must make it quite plain that the Government are not prepared to take any steps of the sort. It might, indeed, be said that on the matter of leaving the Commission to run the railways free from political interference there is agreement between the two political parties. Under the Socialist Government, the Act of 1947 nationalised the railways and adopted a system which was intended to preserve sound business administration.
This view was put by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) on 4th December, 1947, when he, who was largely responsible for that policy, made the classical pronouncement on the subject. He said:
Under recent legislation, boards have been set up to run socialised industries on business lines on behalf of the community; and Ministers are not responsible for their day-to-day administration. A large degree of independence for the boards in matters of current administration is vital to their efficiency as commercial undertakings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 566.]
Under the Conservative Government, the Act of 1953 amended the previous Act, but it deliberately preserved this principle. In another respect, indeed, it showed a desire to leave the Commission enjoying greater freedom from control. Under Sections 20 and 21, the old restrictions upon the freight charges were done away with. The justification for this is that the railways no longer enjoy a monopoly. It is intended that they shall be free by charging lower freights to attract the kind of business that can be better carried by rail than by road, and by charging higher freights to repel business better catered for by road transport. They are no longer deemed to be a service obliged to treat everyone with equality.
Again, in the modernisation plan, which the Government have approved and which the House has accepted, it was made plain that British Railways would aim at expanding their great natural advantages as bulk and long-distance transporters of passengers and goods and of gradually transferring to the road traffic which was more suited to road transport. It would be completely inconsistent with this general principle for us now to seek to compel them to keep open unprofitable branch lines.
Last spring, when we were discussing railway matters, the Government made it plain, in answer in particular to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), that the Government had neither been asked for a subsidy by the Commission nor would it pay it to them. We also said that for some time to come the annual accounts of the Commission were likely to show a heavy deficit. There was some discussion between the hon. Gentleman and myself as to whether the £25 million mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a correct figure. As a result of increased costs and revenues being seriously reduced as a result of the railway strike, there is, I am afraid, little doubt that this year's deficit will be substantially in excess of the £25 million which I mentioned then. What it will be is, of course, still unknown.
We made it quite plain that there were three ways in which we expected the Commission to get its finances into balance in the long-run. The modernisation plan gave careful estimates which indicated a very substantial improvement in the railway's financial position over a period of years. While much of the benefit will have begun to accrue before the fifteen years are over, it has always been quite certain that the benefit would not accrue in large quantity in the first few years of the plan. Although the modernisation plan has got off to a very good start, we cannot expect great financial benefit in the next year or two.
In the second place, we believe that great benefit will accrue from the new flexible scheme of maximum freight charges. Unfortunately, however, there have been so many objections to the scheme that it will be some time before the Transport Tribunal will be able to give a decision. Even when it does, a certain amount of time will be needed to prepare the necessary tables and guides for the staff concerned before the scheme can be put into full operation. We must, therefore, regard as postponed, at any rate for some months, the financial benefit which we had expected would accrue from this new scheme.
That inevitably drives us to the third expedient for reducing the Commission's loss. Much as we all regret it, it is inevitable that the Commission should be obliged to close a number of branch lines and unremunerative services in order


to reduce its losses. Lack of labour, shortage of coal and the need for a sound financial policy will tend to drive the Commission in this direction.

Mr. Hobson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has power, when branch lines are closed for the reasons which he has given, to compel public or private bus companies to introduce services so that people can have adequate transport? Is so, what does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Molson: The answer is that we have not that power and do not propose to seek it.
The finances of the passenger services of British Railways are not satisfactory. The main long-distance lines are profitable, but the slow services are so unprofitable that, as a whole, the passenger services are heavily subsidised from the freight services. Since there is increasing competition in the freight field this position cannot continue. The main reason for the unprofitability of the passenger services is that in a very wide area, as was indicated by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West, road transport can do the work of the unremunerative railway passenger services at lower cost and with greater efficiency, and usually in a way more acceptable to the travelling public.

Mr. Hobson: Yet it will not do it in this case.

Mr. Molson: The Commission accepts these facts and knows that it will mean a far-reaching change in the existing pattern of the passenger service. Broadly speaking, it will mean leaving the railways to operate the fast, long-distance passenger services between the principal centres of population, and transferring local passenger services on both main and branch railway lines to suitable road services which already exist or are provided as a substitute for the services closed down.
The Commission believes that this will not only be to its financial advantage but for the general convenience of the great majority of travellers. Of course, any change in the transport pattern will inconvenience individual passengers, as has been made plain in the speeches we have heard today, but for the great majority the new pattern will, we believe, be more convenient and the economies will result in the travelling public and the users of the railways obtaining better value for their money. And, as the hon. Member

for Dunbartonshire, West pointed out, a number of uneconomical services being carried by the Commission makes the raising of wages extremely difficult.
It cannot be too often emphasised that under the law as it is at present the cost of uneconomic services such as we have been discussing today is carried by the whole railway-using public. The transport users' consultative committees realise this when they agree to the closing of uneconomic lines like the HalifaxBradford—Keighley and the Forfar—Arbroath lines. The committee was not thinking only of the financial position of the Commission or of the remote, contingent liability of the Treasury which has guaranteed the transport loan, but of the general value which is given by British Railways to those who, as traders or passengers, use its services.
In view of its serious financial position, the Commission is reviewing its many remaining unremunerative services. Something pretty substantial will have to be done, and I hope that the public will realise that they stand to gain by the elimination of uneconomic services. What can be done to ensure that alternative services are provided will certainly be done. I shall not forget the assurance which I have given to my hon. Friend, and I will also look into the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I did not intend to intervene in this debate—which began as one concerning very much a local issue and was continued by another hon. Member on a separate local issue—but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has, quite rightly, raised one or two broad issues. If, therefore, I intervene for the few moments that remain I hope that the House will forgive me.
In his closing remarks, the hon. Gentleman rather foreshadowed the likelihood of a very large number of other lines being closed down. For the reasons which he gave we can accept this, but one point should be borne in mind both by the British Transport Commission and by the Government. It appears to me that, very often, when the closing of branch lines is discussed and accepted sufficient consideration is not given to the possibility of creating new traffic. Several hon. Members have suggested that the


traffic is there, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Commission always reply that there is not the potential traffic. The provision of good and frequent services at regular intervals with dieselisation and the like does create that traffic. That has been so with electrification, of which the electrification in the Southern Region is the great example. The Commission does not give sufficient attention to that point. It does not make sufficient allowance for the fact that if it provides the service it can create the traffic.
Having said that, I arrive at what is, to me, the rather unusual position of supporting the hon. Gentleman. There is no question that the Commission has had placed upon it the responsibility of operating its transport system as a commercial enterprise. That is laid down in both the 1947 and the 1953 Acts. If we insist on the Commission operating as a commercial enterprise, it must be left free to close services which it finds itself, because of losses incurred, incapable of continuing. The Commission, the Government and hon. Members have to decide whether the Commission should operate as a public service or as a commercial enterprise. Parliament has decided that it should operate as the latter. That being the case, we must leave it free to run its business in the way which it judges the best and most efficient from the commercial point of view.
There is the much larger issue of its operating transport as a public service, and we have had debates about that in the past. From the figures to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred this afternoon it is quite clear—

Mr. Hirst: Mr. Hirst rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As I was saying, we have to decide whether we wish to give financial assistance to the Commission and so enable it to run public services if those public services are unremunerative, but unless it is considered necessary to maintain them we must leave the Commission free to close—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hannan.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment: read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — PLANNING APPEALS (PROCEDURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Studholme.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The number of appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act to the inspectors appointed by the Minister is growing. There were about 4,000 of them three years ago, and now they have almost doubled in number. Not only is their number growing, but the number of people attending them is growing, so that more and more people are being brought into the process of town and country planning. That is in itself a good thing, but of course it also means that people are becoming somewhat critical of some of the details of the procedure of these appeals.
The problem is this. These appeals are held in the form of a legal trial. I know that there are many theoretical objections to their being so described, and some of them, although theoretical, are perfectly valid in that the process of the hearing of an objection to a refusal to be allowed to develop is only one of the means by which the Minister informs his mind of the pros and cons of any case. Nevertheless, the public does not appreciate that and I do not think it ever will, and, therefore, since this procedure which looks like a trial has been adopted, I think we must make it as much like a trial, at least in appearance, as possible.
It may be that we ought never to have started this procedure and that we ought to have had a more inquisitorial procedure, rather in the way in which the Monopolies Commission works, which


means that the inspector would have to make all the running himself, and ask the questions, and that there should not be a contest between the two parties, as is at present the case. It is now much too late to do that, however, and I do not think that anybody would wish to alter the fundamental procedure. Therefore, I suggest that we must see whether what the public takes to be a trial—and the public has a very good instinct as to what is or is not a fair trial—is working with that appearance of justice which we all demand.
I am going to make one or two suggestions. They are not original. They are largely the suggestions of Mr. Desmond Heap in his presidential address to the Town Planning Institute, but from my own experience of these proceedings I think that they are all thoroughly justified. I also say from my experience, and I am sure that it will be echoed from the other side of the House, that the inspectors who carry out the appeals do a really magnificent job. It is remarkable how a body of men not primarily trained and indeed often not trained at all as lawyers conduct these proceedings in a most judicial way.
The first of these suggestions is that the burden of proof is not seen to be on the right shoulders. It is for the objector, that is the planning authority, to discharge the onus of proof. The presumption should be that anybody who wants to develop should be allowed to do so, unless good cause is shown against it. What happens very often is that all the applicant receives when his first application is refused is simply a statement saying that the application to develop is rejected because it is not in conformity with good town and country planning principles or does not conform with the county plan or something of that sort.
That does not tell the applicant enough. He ought to be told more exactly what is the planning authority's ease. Even more, I think that the planning authority ought to open the proceedings, because the applicant does not really know the case which he has to meet until the planning authority has put that case. I am sure that hon. Members opposite have had the experience which I have had, that one goes to one of these hearings, if one is appearing for the applicant, and one does not really know what the authority's case

will be. All one gets is the intimation on the document rejecting the application.
If, as I believe is right, the planning authority should begin, the person who wishes to develop would know before he opened his case exactly what objection he had to meet. I believe that the public would prefer it. I do not go so far as to say that it is always to the advantage of the developer, because by that process he loses the last word. Nevertheless, I think that that is something which should be sacrificed for the sake of the right legal position, which is that the man who has to discharge the onus of proof should be the man who begins.
In addition, I think that before the hearing begins planning authorities should be encouraged to supply the developers, so far as possible, with copies of plans and of any written statements that are to be put in at the time of the hearing. I dislike written statements very much. It is much better to have oral statements, but if written statements are to be put in, there is no reason why they should not be supplied to the developer before the hearing begins. He can then see what the case is and, if necessary, he can consult experts himself and ask their opinion about it. At present these statements are put in after his case is closed and he cannot get evidence from his experts or witnesses upon them. So at present there is a considerable element of surprise which frequently works against the developer.
The second thing which might be done to improve matters is that both the developer and the public should feel that everything likely to persuade the mind of the Minister should be open and aboveboard at the hearing. That raises the problem of other Government Departments and their reports to the Minister. At present that step takes place either before or after the hearing but not at it, and so frequently the developer, and certainly the public, does not know what other Government Departments, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Ministry of Education, are saying about his case, and he cannot cross-examine the people from those Departments who are making whatever case they wish to be made.
There appears to be a mystical objection to making a change on the ground that the representative of one Government Department should not appear


before the representative of another Government Department, but that again seems to me to be a purely theoretical objection. Frequently in a court of law the Crown is on both sides of the record, and I do not see why it should not occur in the much less formal and much less theoretical atmosphere of an inquiry. And there is no reason, to my mind, because of the natural objection of Government servants to giving evidence at all, why they should not have their views aired at the hearing and be subject to cross-examination. I think the public would feel that that would be a much less hugger-mugger way of doing things, and that everything was being exposed to the light of day.
The third point concerns the question of the publication of the report of the inspector. I can see no objection to that. It is done in the cases of the inspectors in the hearing of Ministry of Education appeals, there is no great hardship there and no harm is done that anyone has discovered. Why should the same not be done in the case of appeals to the Minister of Housing and Local Government? Again, it would give a much better impression to the public and to the developer.
The general experience is that people do not so much mind their case, or their neighbour's case, being rejected if they feel that the matter has been thrashed out in the light of day, whereas all sorts of false rumours often get about as to backstairs and back-stage influence if all these matters are not brought out into the open. Accordingly, I do not believe there is any valid objection to that procedure, but if there is, it can be weighed against the fact that the public often thinks that under the present system things are hushed up. That is a far greater objection than that of perhaps disclosing sometimes something that is inconvenient to the Government.
I promised that I would be brief because I know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to speak, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that all this is very much in mind and that it will no doubt be considered by the Franks Committee on the question of administrative taw and machinery which the Govern-

ment have set up recently. That Committee will range far wider than this quite narrow ambit. It will range over the whole of the Government machine. It is bound to take a long time to report, and it is necessary, in my submission, that these few, detailed and easy reforms should be considered and put into practice independently of the Franks' Committee.
It is said that it is often a convenience for the Government to have a Committee sitting considering a subject so as to give an opportunity for delay. I am sure my hon. Friend is not guilty of that. It would not be right to delay these small, simple reforms, to which no objection can be taken by any member of the Franks Committee, which are by no means new, which have been canvassed very freely ever since this procedure under the Town and Country Planning Acts was erected, and which are supported by majority opinion among not only lawyers but those who are, in a sense, on the other side of the fence.
I hope that no theoretical objections will be allowed to stand in the way of these reforms because those who, like myself, believe very strongly that town and country planning has come to stay—and a good thing too—consider that it is vital to carry the population with us in the matter, and we shall not do that as long as people think there is some hanky-panky about the hearings and that the dice are loaded secretly and strongly against the would-be developer.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am glad to have the opportunity to intervene in the debate for a very short time. I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister one or two additional matters.
First, I believe that the reason why so many difficulties arise in procedure in town and country planning appeals often lies in the imprecise form of the grounds of refusal prepared by local planning authorities. If the grounds of refusal are vague and imprecise, this casts a shadow upon the whole conduct of the hearing, takes up a great deal of time, and involves difficulties in the way of evidence and so on.
I take the view that the Minister must be regarded as having some responsibility for this, because to the extent to which the Minister's decisions upon planning appeals are vague and imprecise, local planning authorities may be thought to be tempted to be vague and imprecise themselves. I acknowledge that the letters conveying the decisions of the Minister in town and country planning matters in recent years have steadily improved. They now go to the length of setting out very fairly the evidence that has been given upon either side. But when we come to the all-important matter of the reasons which have led the Minister to come to the decision at which he has arrived, these are often vague and imprecise.
If these decisions could be made clearer and more distinct, I believe that an improvement would be found in the statements of the grounds of refusal by local planning authorities, and as a direct consequence of that, greater clarity would also be found in the statements of grounds of appeal. It should then be possible for evidence and argument at these inquiries to be confined, with special exceptions, much more easily than they are at present to the matters set out in the grounds of refusal and the grounds of appeal.
I suggest that the Minister should, as he has power to do, make a point of insisting that an appeal shall not be heard until the local planning authority has adequately and sufficiently clearly set out its grounds for refusal. This need not result in greater delay than occurs at present. I believe that, if that were done, many of the difficulties would disappear.
There is one other point I desire to mention. We are told that the inspectors receive instructions from the Minister about the taking of evidence and matters related thereto. When I asked a Question in the House about that some time ago and asked that the appellant should be given copies of the instructions sent to inspectors by the Minister in this regard, the Answer from the Minister—Vol. 537, c. 137—was that it would not be helpful to appellants to see the instructions but that a copy would be deposited in the Library. I am very glad to note that the President of the Town Planning Institute, whose address has been mentioned, calls attention in that address to that Question and Answer and says:

Is it really necessary for the Minister to indulge in this gratuitous obscurantism? Rules as to the conduct of public inquiries should surely be public rules whether they tend to be helpful or obstructive to appellants.
I hope that attention will be given to that. The point is that if the guidance which the inspector has received as to evidence is known to all concerned at the inquiry it is easier for those appearing for appellants to recognise when it is legitimate to raise objections to the admissibility of evidence, if objections there are.
I conclude by saying that I particularly agreed with what the hon. Member for Darwen had to say about the desirability of the local planning authority giving prior notice of the plans and maps and statements that are to be produced, because although I share his high regard for the inspectors it is very much open to objection that these matters sometimes come as a complete surprise to the appellant. I also entirely agree with what he had to say about the desirability that where Government Departments are playing a part in influencing that decision the evidence from the Department's representative should be available in the open at the inquiry.

4.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): My hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) have raised an issue of wide and topical interest which might have well stimulated a longer debate, had we had the time. Despite the final reference which my hon. Friend made to the Committee recently appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and which is under the chairmanship of Sir Oliver Franks, I must stress, without wishing to be evasive, the fact that the appointment of the Committee does put me under a certain disability. Part of its terms of reference includes:
…the working of such administrative procedures as include the holding of an inquiry or hearing by or on behalf of a Minister on an appeal …
I will go as far as I can in meeting some of the points which have been raised, but the procedure at these inquiries is what might be described as sub-quasi-judice at the moment and my hon. Friend


really cannot get away with the suggestion that the reforms are simple and small and that we can proceed without any reference to the Committee. I cannot accept that. I should like to comment, but not pass judgment, on the various points which he has raised and I am grateful to him for giving me notice about them, because they are very technical.
My hon. Friend referred to the address which Mr. Desmond Heap gave on 3rd November and which I have read in full. I agree that it is stimulating and I have no doubt that others will read it in the future. My hon. Friend's first point was that the onus should be on the planning authority to open the proceedings. Normally, the appellant opens the proceedings and calls witnesses who can he cross-examined and then the authority states its case and its witnesses can be cross-examined. The appellant has the further opportunity to speak again, if he so desires.
We think that it is not a bad thing that the appellant should, as it were, be in a position to set the scene from the start. He is often in a position to give the basic information which is needed. From that point of view there may be advantages in having the procedure that way round. But I want to stress that it should not be assumed from that that the onus of proof lies on the appellant. Circular 61/53 to planning authorities made it clear that they should, when considering applications for planning permission, give the applicant the benefit of any doubt. I would add that this procedure is not inflexible. There is no objection at all, if the parties agree, to the planning authority opening the proceedings. There is no reason why that should not be done.
Perhaps I might refer here to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Edge Hill, when he said that he was ready to consider any proposals for improving the procedure—
but … I have not had any general demand for a change of that kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 998.]
I think that that was a fair comment on the suggestion which has been made.
The second point was that if the planning authority submit written evidence it should give the appellant a copy beforehand. When an appeal is

made to my right hon. Friend, the normal practice is to invite the planning authority to comment on the grounds of the appeal as stated by the applicant, and a copy of the comments received from the authority is sent to the applicant. Here again there are circulars involved Planning authorities have been urged, particularly in Circulars 69 and 61/53, to discuss proposed development with the applicant for planning permission both before and after the authority issues its decision.
What I do freely accept—and I think that this is really what my hon. Friend has in mind—is the principle that the appellant should be in possession of sufficient material in order to prepare and to fight his case effectively. I think that that is really the most important issue here. Another important point is that evidence at these inquiries is always given orally. Proofs of evidence are sometimes produced at inquiries, and an inspector may be handed a copy, but this practice. I am advised, is at least as commonly adopted by the appellants as by the planning authority.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of the evidence of Government Departments, which, I know, is a very thorny subject and one which has attracted a good deal of criticism. The present practice, which I recite without comment, by reason of my earlier remarks, is founded on the constitutional argument that since the Government is ultimately one it is undesirable for representatives of one Department to give evidence, especially on policy, at inquiries of another Department. I do not add to that but, as I think my hon. Friend knows, that is briefly the point.
The fourth and most important point—and this is certainly a most difficult point—is that the inspector's report should be published so that there should be no suggestion in anybody's mind that there has been any "funny business." This is a very difficult and complicated question. I have no doubt at all that it is bound to get the full attention of Sir Oliver Franks' Committee. I would only say that the inquiry is part, but only part, of the process by which the Minister makes up his mind on what is really generally an administrative issue. The fact that the issue is largely administrative was recognised in the presidential address to which reference has been made.
It is, I think, a matter for very careful consideration whether there is any difference in principle between the officer who holds the inquiry and other officers of the Ministry who comment on the case. It is a long-established principle that officers should advise the Minister in confidence. The question I put to my hon. Friend is, if publication of reports is to become the general practice, should any comments that go with these reports be published with them, or should those comments be withheld. That is the question which must be answered if we are to go into the matter. What I have said deals mainly with inspectors' recommendations, but the report also contains a statement of the facts of the case.
If there is to be criticism that an inspector has incorrectly reported the facts, I must point out that always in the letter stating the Minister's decision are stated the facts on which he based his decision. They are repeated openly in that letter. Experience is that complaints of misrepresentation or failure to inform the Minister fully are practically nonexistent.
I am glad that my hon. Friend paid tribute to the work done by the inspectors, not all of whom are lawyers—though that is not necessarily a disadvantage. Whatever procedure or system is eventually adopted, we shall rely largely on the personal qualities of these inspectors. I see these reports, and I am struck by the efforts they make and the pains they take to produce an answer which is fair to both sides. As a past critic of this system on other occasions, I say frankly that I have revised some of my ideas. From one point of view I wish that the reports could be made public. They

would reassure those who think that there is some "funny business" going on behind closed doors.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I have tried to dodge the difficulties or hidden behind the Franks' Committee, but these are contentious issues. We have had my hon. Friend's able statement of the situation which, I have no doubt, will sooner or later reach the members of the committee. I am sure that the findings now awaited on this most important issue will prove satisfactory.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I wish to congratulate the Minister on his statesmanlike reply. Although I agree with my hon. Friends on most of their suggestions there would not have been unanimity between us, had there been time to develop the matter, on the question of the publication of the reports of the inspectors. I think there is strength in the famous words of Lord Shaw in the Aldridge case on this matter, that grave difficulties arise where disclosure of such reports can be compelled.
The real trouble about these tribunals is that the public mistake their function, which is essentially administrative rather than judicial. Although, their form being judicial, it is imperative that justice should manifestly be done, I think it our duty to emphasise that their function is administrative. The major points of criticism are based on the error of thinking that their function is also judicial.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Five o'clock.